Specific Tender under Framework Contract ENER/A4/516-2014 · 1) Preparatory study for the...

Fitness Check Evaluation in the EU Energy acquis and Impact Assessment of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union

1) Preparatory study for the Commission’s

Fitness Check Evaluation of Planning and Reporting Obligations in the EU Energy acquis

2) Support for an Impact Assessment in view of

legislative proposals on streamlining of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union (Energy Union Governance)

Specific Tender under Framework

Contract ENER/A4/516-2014

Final report


2

Contract details

European Commission, DG ENER

ENER/A1/2015-643 – under framework contract ENER/A4/516-2014

1) Preparatory study for the Commission’s Fitness Check Evaluation of Planning and Reporting

Obligations in the EU Energy acquis

2) Support for an Impact Assessment in view of legislative proposals on streamlining of Planning,

Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union (Energy Union Governance)

Presented by

Consortium led by:

Trinomics B.V.

Westersingel 32A

3014 GS, Rotterdam

the Netherlands

Contact main author(s)

Koen Rademaekers

[email protected]

Date

18 July 2016

Disclaimer

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily

reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the

data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission behalf

may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

mailto:[email protected]

i

Rotterdam, 18July 2016

Client: DG ENER ENER/A1/2015-643

under framework contract ENER/A4/516-2014

1) Preparatory study for the Commission’s Fitness Check Evaluation of Planning and Reporting Obligations in the EU Energy acquis

2) Support for an Impact Assessment in view of legislative proposals on streamlining of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union

(Energy Union Governance)

In association with:


iii

CONTENTS

Abbreviations........................................................................................... v

Executive Summary .................................................................................. vii

Résumé ............................................................................................... xvii

1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 3

1.1 Context of this study .............................................................................. 3

1.2 Objectives and scope ............................................................................. 4

1.3 Structure of this report ........................................................................... 5

2 Methodology and Approach ..................................................................... 7

2.1 Approach and methodology ...................................................................... 7

2.2 Key challenges/ limitations .................................................................... 10

3 Analysis of reporting and planning obligations .............................................13

3.1 Preparation ........................................................................................ 13

3.2 Data analysis ...................................................................................... 14

3.3 Findings and recommendations from existing evaluations ............................. 35

3.4 Foreseen changes in the obligations ........................................................ 39

4 Assessment of the costs and benefits of each planning and reporting obligation ...41

4.1 Cost Analysis ...................................................................................... 41

4.2 Benefit Analysis .................................................................................. 50

PART A: EVALUATION ................................................................................53

5 Evaluation – findings .............................................................................55

5.1 Effectiveness ...................................................................................... 55

5.2 Efficiency .......................................................................................... 63

5.3 Coherence ......................................................................................... 71

5.4 Relevance .......................................................................................... 78

5.5 EU added value ................................................................................... 80

5.6 Evaluation against the five Better Regulation criteria for each obligation ......... 84

PART B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union.................................................................................................. 105

6 Problem definition ............................................................................. 107

6.1 Problem that requires action ................................................................ 107

6.2 Affected stakeholders.......................................................................... 113

6.3 Best practices on reporting streamlining .................................................. 115


iv

7 Policy options ................................................................................... 117

7.1 Baseline scenario (no policy change) ....................................................... 117

7.2 Policy option 1: Soft guidance to Member States on planning, reporting and monitoring. ....................................................................................... 117

7.3 Policy option 2: Regulating planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy and climate field through sector-specific EU energy and climate legislation ...................................................................................................... 118

7.4 Policy option 3: Regulating planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy and climate field in a single legislative act ...................................... 118

8 Analysis of impacts ............................................................................ 119

8.1 Methodology and impacts addressed ....................................................... 119

8.2 Baseline scenario: No policy change ........................................................ 121

8.3 Policy option 1: Soft guidance ............................................................... 128

8.4 Policy option 2: sectoral legislation ........................................................ 138

8.5 Policy option 3: Single legislative act ...................................................... 149

8.6 Sub option 3a: All obligations are streamlined through a single Legislative Act . 151

8.7 Sub-option 3b: Most of obligations are streamlined through a single Legislative Act ...................................................................................................... 160

9 Comparison of Policy Options ................................................................ 171

9.1 Summary of the analysis of impacts expected in policy options ..................... 171

9.2 Comparison of the policy options ........................................................... 176

10 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 185

10.1 Conclusions of the Evaluation ................................................................ 185

10.2 Conclusions of the Impact Assessment ..................................................... 186

10.3 Recommendations .............................................................................. 195

Annex A: Complete list of obligations within the scope of this study .................... 201

Annex B: List of reviewed sources .............................................................. 209

Annex C: List of stakeholders interviewed .................................................... 213

Annex D: Interview questionnaires ............................................................. 215

Annex E: Stakeholder interviews ................................................................ 219

Annex F: Survey questionnaire .................................................................. 241

Annex G: Survey results ........................................................................... 251

Annex H: Detailed survey responses ............................................................ 299

Annex I: Impact assessment of Policy Option: Assumptions used for the cost analysis .... .................................................................................................... 307


v

Abbreviations ACER The Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators CEER Council of European Energy Regulators CEF Connecting Europe Facility CIRCABC Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations, Businesses and Citizens Coun. Dec. Council Decision Coun. Dir. Council Directive DG CLIMA Directorate-General for Climate DG ENER Directorate-General for Energy DGRTD Directorate-General for Research and Technical Development Dir. Directive EASME Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises EC European Commission e-DAMIS electronic Dataflow Administration and Management Information System EEA European Environment Agency EED Energy Efficiency Directive EESC European Economic and Social Committee ELD Energy Labelling Directive EMOS European Master in Official Statistics ENTSO-E European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity ENTSOG European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas EP European Parliament EPBD Efficiency Performance of Buildings Directive ERGEG European Regulators' Group for Electricity and Gas ETS Emission Trading System EU European Union Euratom European Atomic Energy Community FTE Full-Time Equivalent GDP Gross Domestic Product IA Impact Assessment IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IEA International Energy Agency IGA Intergovernmental Agreements MOU Memorandum of Understanding MS Member States NECP National Energy and Climate Plans NEEAP National Energy Efficiency Action Plan

NIF National Infringement Database

NRAs National Regulatory Authorities NREAP National Renewable Energy Action Plan OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PCI Projects of Common Interest PO Policy Option R&D Research and Development RED Renewable Energy Directive Reg. Regulation REMIT Wholesale Energy Market Integrity and Transparency SARIS Self-Assessment of Regulatory Infrastructure for Safety TEN-E Trans-European Energy Networks TSO Transmission System Operator TYNDP Ten Year Network Development Plans UN United Nations


vii

Executive Summary Introduction and objectives of this study

This document is the final report for the Fitness Check Evaluation in the EU Energy acquis within the

context of European Commission’s REFIT programme, and Impact Assessment of Planning, Reporting and

Monitoring for the Energy Union. The overarching objective of this study is to contribute to the REFIT

Evaluation/ Fitness Check of the reporting and planning obligations in the EU energy acquis1 and to

contribute in this context to optimising and updating the planning and reporting obligations in the

energy and climate field, both for the Commission and for Member States.

This study is conducted within the framework of the Energy Union Strategy,2 in which the European

Commission is working towards streamlining and simplifying existing reporting and planning obligations

in order to reduce the administrative burden thereof, and to propose a new Energy Union governance

system to do so. These two aims are directly linked to the two parts of this study:

A. Fitness Check:

• Collect and analyse evidence, both qualitatively and quantitatively, about the existing

planning and reporting obligations enshrined in the EU energy acquis, their costs (i.e.

administrative burden) and benefits, the degree of coordination among them and any

knowledge gaps in the context of the Energy Union, based on the five Better Regulation

criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value;

• Identify possibilities for streamlining and simplification.

B. Impact Assessment:

• Analyse the policy options for streamlining of planning and reporting in view of the Energy

Union governance system and for reducing the administrative burden, in line with the Better

Regulation criteria;

• Assess the potential to integrate the current planning obligations into one national energy and

climate plan as envisioned in the Energy Union Strategy;

• Quantify the impacts (costs and benefits), in particular to identify the cost savings from

simplification;

• Provide guidance on how EU legislation would have to be developed to facilitate an optimised

planning and reporting structure post-2020.

Methodology

There are two main methodologies undertaken in this study related to the two parts of the study.

The tools developed for this study fulfilled recommendations of the EC Better Regulation "Toolbox".

These methodologies fall back on a number of methods:

1 Fitness Check Roadmap: Streamlining reporting and planning obligations in the EU energy acquis [REFIT], http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf; Inception Impact Assessment: Energy Union Governance – Planning, Reporting and Monitoring obligations, http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_029_energy_union_governance_planning_and_reporting_en.pdf 2 A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy, COM(2015)080 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:80:FIN

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_029_energy_union_governance_planning_and_reporting_en.pdf


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:80:FIN



viii

• Desk review - review of the relevant pieces of legislation and their planning and reporting

obligations, review of existing evaluations and impact assessments, review of the results of the

parallel study conducted by DG CLIMA, any other literature that was relevant. This review is

the basis for the analysis of existing obligations and provides input to the evaluation and

impact assessment.

• Review of intervention logics – the aim of the review of intervention logics is to

comprehensively identify and analyse the relevant pieces of legislation and their reporting and

planning obligations in terms of the needs, specific objectives (associated with planning and

reporting in the various pieces of legislation), inputs, impacts, results and outputs. This review

supports primarily the evaluation.

• Online survey with the Member States and Commission officials - the aim of the survey was

to collect figures and data to estimate the costs for the Standard Cost Model assessment, the

perceived benefits as well as information for the evaluation and impact assessment. The target

audience included different ministries and directorates, energy agencies, etc. at the Member

State level as well as a sample of officials from the Commission3. The results of the survey

were used for the evaluation mainly.

• Interviews with the Member States and Commission officials and agencies – 31 interviews4

were conducted with different ministries and directorates, energy agencies at the Member

State level and with a sample of Commission officials and its agencies. Tailored questionnaires

were used to collect information relevant for the evaluation and in particular the impact

assessment.

The methodologies and methods are robust with respect to the quantitative assessment of the costs and

the qualitative assessment of the benefits based on the Member State survey. The results of the desk

review are also robust as all relevant pieces of legislation, their impact assessments and evaluations,

and any other supporting literature and material were reviewed and analysed. The results of the

interviews and survey with the Commission officials rely only on a representative sample, and need to

be interpreted with care. In order to come up with strong and robust recommendations, triangulation of

all these methods was used.

Analysis of reporting and planning obligations

In the current EU energy acquis, planning and reporting obligations have been designed for each EU

energy policy. They include numerous planning and reporting obligations. This study has analysed 58

reporting and 15 planning obligations, as well as 6 evaluations and 11 statistical obligations5, contained

in 31 pieces of legislation (thus 90 obligations in total). Most obligations are related to a fully-

integrated European energy market (35), followed by energy efficiency (15) and nuclear energy (15),

energy security, solidarity and trust (13) and decarbonising the economy (6). Six obligations were

categorised as ‘Other’. Some obligations, most notably obligations on nuclear energy, do not obviously

fit under one of the Energy Union dimensions and are therefore treated as a separate category.

3 In total 110 respondents provided 247 single obligation specific responses. Each respondent provided inputs for 1 to 11 obligations. 4 Some of the interviews involved multiple respondents; 38 officials were interviewed in total. 5 Statistical obligations are obligations that require statistical data to be sent to Eurostat. Could be considered a type of reporting obligation.


ix

The obligations aim to: i) provide information on national implementation and compliance; ii) to track

progress towards targets and alert to the need for policy reforms; iii) to increase transparency and

public confidence; and iv) to share knowledge in a more general sense.

The main focus of this study lies on the obligations for Member States and the Commission. However,

for the purpose of identifying streamlining potential, a few obligations by other entities in the Energy

acquis are relevant as well. These are obligations performed by the ACER, ENTSO-E and ENTSOG and

the TSOs. The obligations are meant to inform the EU institutions, social partners, stakeholders and the

general public. 24 obligations make use of templates, which can be either mandatory or voluntary.

They are mostly provided by the Commission to be used by Member States, but also two Commission

reports make use of a template.

Cost and benefit assessment

The costs vary greatly per obligation between Member States, as well as per policy area. The total

Member State costs are estimated as close to EUR 13 million (mln) per year for existing reporting

obligations and close to EUR 7 mln per year for existing planning obligations. The policy areas which

account for the largest share of the total reporting costs are the Internal Energy Market and Energy

efficiency, with each topic accounting for about EUR 5 mln per year.

In terms of specific cost categories, the costs of equipment and software represent the highest share

for reporting obligations (with an estimated value at EU level close to EUR 6 mln per year), followed by

the costs of outsourcing and subcontracting activities (amounting to EUR 4 mln per year for reporting

obligations) and staff time (EUR 3 mln per year for reporting obligations). For planning obligations, the

highest estimated annual costs relate to outsourcing and subcontracting activities (EUR 4 mln), followed

by equipment and software costs and staff costs (about EUR 1 mln each).

Although the administrative costs can be high, around 63% of the REFIT FC survey respondents

(irrespective of area) are positive about the costs of the planning and reporting obligations, considering

them at least to some extent (‘somewhat’ or ‘a great extent’) proportionate to the benefits, and about

half of them considered them justified to some extent as well. Across the different areas, around half

of the respondents gave positive answers on the proportionality of the costs, even though some energy

areas, such as energy efficiency have much higher costs than other areas.

The costs of each obligation were also assessed qualitatively (as low, medium, high). The majority of

MS and Commission obligations fall into the ‘medium cost’ category, comprised between EUR 1,689

(first quartile) and EUR 26,355 (third quartile). The obligations typically found to have a lower cost are

reporting obligations on statistics. The cost assessment in particular of the MS obligations is considered

to be robust due to a relatively good coverage of MS with survey data.

The qualitative assessment is relatively robust for the majority of obligations as we have obtained

sufficiently large sample size. Collecting quantitative data on benefits was not considered feasible nor

robust as respondents were not able to give a sound quantitative estimate. As such, it could be

interesting to inform the MS better in the future about the usefulness and thus the benefits of reporting

obligations. Of the 46 MS obligations, 18 were found to have high overall benefits and 24 moderate

benefits. Of the 36 Commission obligations, 12 were deemed to have high benefits and 10 moderate


x

benefits. Our assessment indicates that the largest number of benefits are in the areas of improved

transparency of energy policy, more consistent and comparable data, better quality and accurate data,

and improved compliance. The lowest number of benefits are apparent in the areas of improved

transparency of energy investments and better monitoring of climate targets, renewable energy targets

and safety measures.

Evaluation results

Evaluation of the existing planning and reporting obligations against the five Better Regulation criteria

has been based on integrating and cross-checking the results of all the methods employed. The

reporting and planning obligations with low scores on some of the five criteria will be discussed under

the recommendations and conclusion section.

Effectiveness

The planning and reporting obligations have a positive contribution against the vast majority of the

objectives. Tracking compliance is the objective with the most positive contribution from the

obligations. The results from the survey and interviews support this, with a large majority of the

obligations deemed highly effective in reaching their objective, and most of the other obligations

deemed moderately effective.

Efficiency

Planning and reporting make an important contribution to achieving policy objectives. Even though the

evidence collected does not allow us to make any robust conclusions on the actual policy changes

achieved through these obligations, the stakeholders consider these obligations as useful in bringing

forward changes at the national level, particularly the planning obligations.

Many obligations are very burdensome for MSs and the Commission. But the benefits are recognized as

well. The REFIT FC survey and interviews have confirmed the existence of several benefits of the

planning and reporting obligations, such as contribution to improved compliance, transposition

checking, monitoring of the implementation, better quality data and improved transparency.

Electronic platforms and common templates are used for 24 obligations. While there is not enough

evidence to quantify the impact of those on the decrease of the administrative burden of reporting,

from the interviews it is apparent that in general these platforms and templates are considered very

useful and practical by the Member States. There is also some use of online reporting and data

collation. This makes data analysis easier because it standardises the data format and location. It does

not appear that any of the data sets collected are sufficiently detailed to enable ‘big data’ analysis

(using very detailed and large data sets), even though some Member States do have this data.

Coherence

There are some inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the current obligations. The timing and periodicity

varies from every week up to every 10 years, depending on their purpose, which imposes a challenge

for streamlining obligations. There are overlaps in reporting data, as well as between data reported by

MSs to the DG Energy and data inputs for the Eurostat database. The quantitative analysis identified 27


xi

reporting indicators6 in four pieces of legislation that overlap with indicators in the Eurostat database.

Another 4 indicators overlap partially. These pieces of legislation have clear potential for streamlining.

Indeed, 41% of survey respondents indicated that they are required to report the same data under more

than one reporting obligation.

There is also room for improvement in the coherence between obligations in the fields of energy and

climate change. There is an indication that the planning and reporting obligations in the EU energy

acquis make a moderate contribution towards climate targets, but responses by stakeholders vary

strongly on the matter. There are several overlaps and inconsistencies between the reporting and

planning obligations under the MMR, RED and EED that could be streamlined.

Relevance

Nearly all obligations that were reviewed are fit for the purpose they are intended for. Virtually all of

the rationales for the planning and reporting obligations in each piece of legislation are relatively easy

to allocate to one of the Energy Union objectives. The REFIT FC survey respondents’ views vary on

whether the current obligations are still up to date. Four obligations under the EED and RED were

perceived as being ‘not at all up-to-date’ by some respondents, but here too views varied and we found

no conclusive evidence.

EU added value

The obligations contribute to the coordination of EU energy policy but the effects on alignment of

Member States’ energy policy are not consensual. The interviews with DG Energy officials confirmed

that Members States’ reporting generally provides the Commission with information that is not available

from other sources and allows the Commission to monitor implementation. It appears that the EU added

value of the reports varies between policy areas, with a more positive contribution in those areas

where there are relatively coherent plans and data standards (e.g. for renewable energy). There is

agreement in principle with the suggestion that Member States can learn from each other via the

reported data, but there are no obvious examples, and the opinions collected indicate some scepticism

over whether it ever actually occurs.

Our conclusion on the contribution of reporting and planning to EU added value needs to involve a

consideration of the purpose of having EU level energy policy. If, as we assume, the purpose is to align

the objectives, leaving Member States largely free to decide the details of how these objectives are

achieved, then the EU added value of reporting is largely related to the collection and collation of

individual MS data to obtain EU level data that enables EU level progress to be assessed. The collation

of EU level data, and information on policies and measures, does enable MSs to learn from each other,

but it is hard to prove causality in the design of individual MS policies.

Impact Assessment results

The Impact assessment (IA) is an economic IA based on the analysis of the impact of five policy options

(PO), namely ‘Baseline Option’ (no policy change), ‘PO1 Soft guidance’, ‘PO2 Streamlining sectorial

legislation’, ‘PO3a Single legislative act: streamlining all obligations’ and ‘PO3b Single legislative act:

streamlining most/selected obligation’. The impact of each PO has been assessed according to the

6 Section 3.2.8 discusses the indicators in detail.


xii

following aspects: (1) direct cost, including cost of the initial implementation of the interventions and

cost of ongoing reporting/planning activities, (2) direct benefits, including cost saving, higher efficiency

of reporting system, improved information quality, simpler and more coherent reporting procedures,

and specific benefits for companies; (3) indirect or wider impact, i.e. on transparency of national and

EU policies, better statistics, better national energy and climate policy; and (4) impact on Energy Union

objectives, i.e. the five dimension - energy security, solidarity and trust; a fully-integrated internal

energy market; energy efficiency as a contribution to the moderation of energy demand;

decarbonisation of the economy; and enhance R&I in low carbon technologies and help financing such

projects. The cost of introduction/adoption and annual coordination of the National Energy and Climate

Plan (NECP) by the MSs has been envisaged in the PO1, PO2, PO3a and PO3b.

The IA findings show that the cost of initial implementation covers the cost for EC, 28 MSs, investment

in the single electronic reporting system, as well as the cost of developing and adoption of NECP.

Introducing changes under the baseline option will cost the EC and all EU 28 MSs in total around EUR

13.8 mln, under PO1 - EUR 20.6 mln, under PO2 - EUR 50.1mln, under PO3a – close to EUR 36 mln,

and under PO3b close to EUR 27 mln.

In terms of annual cumulative cost associated with reporting/planning (including the cost related to

new NECP coordination), subcontracting and equipment/ICT use by the Members States, the PO3b

appears to be the least costly option (around EUR 20 mln/year) due to the reduced efforts on reporting

under the single reporting system. It is roughly EUR 1 mln/year less costly than the baseline scenario

(EUR 21 mln/year). The annual cost under other PO1 and PO3a shows to be rather in a close range,

with EUR 21.7 mln/year estimates for PO1 and EUR 22 mln/year for PO3b. PO2 has shown to achieve

excessive annual cost of EUR 29.5 mln/year. These estimates conclude that only PO3b is expected to

achieve small actual cost savings (in comparison to the Baseline scenario), while other three options

have shown to have higher annual administrative cost burden than business as usual. Cost efficiencies

are not achieved in PO1, PO2 and PO3a because the cost reductions through integration and repeal of

obligations are overtaken by more burdensome NECP coordination cost to a large extent.

All in all, the analysis of the implementation and annual administrative costs showed a clear preference

for PO3b, which is also the only option that achieves annual cost savings.

The analysis of expected direct benefits and wider policy impacts reinforces the perspective on the

preference for PO3b. PO3b has the highest positive benefits and impacts across most of the benefits

and impact categories, while PO2 comes close in comparison. This might stem from the fact that the

scope of streamlining in PO2 and PO3b is similar, i.e. the same set of obligations to be integrated in

NECP with the rest streamlined and simplified. This is expected to deliver similar outcomes, such as

obligations legally bind either via sectoral legislations or via single legislative act, all contributing to

NECP and using the single electronic system for reporting. At the same time the PO2 can suffer from

the lack of coordination and many risks and uncertainties in implementation. Some preferences can still

be observed for the PO3b due to expectation of the higher positive impact on the better regulation

objectives and on the overall energy and climate objectives.

Both the interviews and the results of the online stakeholders’ consultation also demonstrated the

higher preference for PO3b and favouring the integration of the selected most relevant obligations

under the single legislative act and the NECP. As noted in the policy option analysis sections, the


xiii

feasibility of the PO3a was questioned by majority of the interviewed stakeholders, while the online

consultation pointed at risks of integrating all reporting obligations under one single report. Therefore,

one can conclude that the PO3b was favoured by a larger share of stakeholders in the online

consultation and the interviews.

The final comparisons of policy options included five Better Regulation criteria, along with the cost and

time needs for the implementation and sustaining of the POs. This assessment has again demonstrated

the stronger positive impact of PO3b showing the positive assessment across all criteria. It assessed

higher in “effectiveness”, “efficiency”, “relevance”, “subsidiarity/EU-added value” and

“proportionality” criteria. PO3a and PO2 has weaker performance in many aspects with ‘efficiency’

being the weakest point of PO2. PO1 has the shortest time of implementation and smaller

implementation cost, however its low ambitions and poor or no impact expectations make it an

unattractive option. PO3a and PO3b have comparable but shorter than in PO2 time of implementation.

Performance of PO3a suffered from the concerns over the feasibility of the option and risks of

unnecessary complexities and loss of important details that are necessary for policy making.

Thus the cumulative assessment based on all criteria shows that the most preferred option is PO3b.

Recommendations

Overall recommendations for the planning and reporting obligations

Overall, our analysis suggests that there is quite some scope for improvement in terms of:

• Aligning the frequency of obligations on similar or related topics as much as possible;

• Aligning reporting frequencies with market realities (such as the speed of change of relevant

indicators);

• Setting common submission deadlines for obligations related to the same legislative act and

which have the same reporting frequency;

• Reducing the overlap between obligations and addressing redundant obligations.

Recommendations for the national energy and climate plans (NECP)

From the evaluation study, we can draw the following recommendations for the national energy and

climate plans (NECP):

• Energy and climate related obligations should be integrated in the NECP as much as possible.

This will improve the overview of the reporting and planning obligations in the EU Energy

acquis, as well as supporting interaction between climate and energy policies;

• Nuclear energy and internal energy market obligations should be kept separate. Both require

very technical (but useful) and detailed information that should be retained. Integrating all

these obligations in the NECP would probably not improve the overview of the energy acquis

nor support the interaction between climate and energy policies. Nuclear obligations have a

lower reporting frequency and different legal background. Internal Energy Market obligations

relate to many different reporting entities. They should be streamlined as much as possible

with Eurostat and within the sector;

• Backward-looking (reporting) quantitative information should be reported directly to Eurostat,

to prevent delays in reporting and ensure transparency and access to information. Forward-

looking (planning) and qualitative information should be reported to DG Energy;


xiv

• Plans should be updated frequently to ensure effectiveness, at least every 1 or 2 years. The

planning obligations should be simplified to diminish administrative burden. Progress reports

should be directly integrated in these plans;

• Strong coordination between the responsible DGs (at EU level) and national departments (at

MS level) is key to a good turnaround time of the NECP. Sections in the NECP should be divided

amongst the responsible policy officers.

Recommendations to streamline and integrate current planning and reporting obligations in the EU

energy acquis

• PO2, PO3a and PO3b will improve streamlining and integration of current obligations.

However, PO3b would reach this objective the best as it integrates only relevant obligations

and ensures more efficient and speedy process through a single legislative act rather than

through revision of sectoral legislation;

• PO3b will also provide a better overview of obligations supporting the five dimensions of the

Energy Union strategy, which is not the case in PO2, where this support will remain in sectoral

legislation;

• This streamlining and integration through legislative approaches will also help to tackle the

problem of large amount of data to be dealt by the Member States and the Commission, which

will not be the case under a soft approach. Any duplications and redundancies should be

tackled through the legislative options as well;

• Streamlining and integration of obligations on its own cannot play a major role in boosting a

progress in Energy Union objectives. There are many other factors that can play a bigger role.

Recommendations to decrease the administrative burden of reporting (ongoing costs)

• Given the assumptions, the only option that offers small cost savings in terms of ongoing

administrative and reporting costs is PO3b, which streamlines selected existing reporting and

planning obligations into a single legislative act and a mandatory integrated national energy

and climate plan. This option is also advantageous since it performs better in delivering the

positive impact.

Recommendations to increase the benefits of a reporting system

• PO3b has a clear advantage over other policy options as it maintains the desired focus on the

obligation that are more relevant to Energy Union objectives and avoids unnecessary burden of

too large reporting scope like in PO3a;

• The introduction of a single electronic reporting system will provide further efficiencies and

coherence, however such a system will need to be well designed to ensure it is simple and

straightforward to use both for the MS and the EC.

Recommendations for the preferred policy option

According to the analysis, policy option 3b is recommended because:

• It is the only option that ensures annual cost savings unlike other policy options having higher

annual cost in comparison to the baseline. The initial cost for implementing this option is also

significantly lower than comparable alternatives (PO3a and PO2);

• It allows for the necessary legislative changes to be made to the existing system, which are

needed for any substantial streamlining and integration of energy and climate obligations to

happen. Without legislative changes, the current system will remain in place as legislation will

have to be followed;


xv

• PO3b allows for the integration of part of obligations into a new single legislative act giving it

a strong legal basis. It also allows for part of obligations to remain in sectoral legislation, in

particular of those that (a) do not fit into the integrated NECP and/ or (b) would benefit more

from staying separate from an integrated plan. This way, there will not be a risk of losing data

and information through integration (as could be the case in policy option 3a where all

obligations would be integrated);

• A mandatory template is expected to contribute to greater consistency between data reported

by different Member States. However, the template should be flexible enough to

accommodate country specificities;

• PO3b introduces a single electronic reporting system, which is seen positively if developed and

used adequately;

• Timewise PO3b is preferable, as it doesn’t not require as much time as in PO2. While it will

require more time than PO1, it achieves much better outcomes.


xvii

Résumé Introduction et objectif de l’étude

Ce document est le rapport final du projet « Fitness Check Evaluation in the EU Energy acquis », qui

s’inscrit dans les programmes « REFIT » et « Impact Assessment of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring

for the Energy Union » de la Commission européenne. L’objectif de ce projet est de faire un bilan de

qualité (« fitness check ») et d’évaluer les obligations en matière de rapports et de planification lié à

l’acquis énergétique européen7. L’étude vise également à identifier des pistes pour améliorer et mettre

à jour les obligations de transparence et de planification dans les domaines de l’énergie et du climat au

niveau de la Commission européenne et des États membres.

Cette étude est menée dans le cadre du Paquet « Union de l’Énergie » 8 de la Commission européenne,

dont l’objectif est de simplifier et rationaliser les obligations existantes en matière de rapports et

planification. Les objectifs spécifiques de l’étude sont de réduire les charges administratives relatives à

ces obligations et de proposer un nouveau système de gouvernance pour l’Union de l’Énergie. Ces deux

objectifs sont directement liés aux deux parties de l’étude :

A. Bilan de qualité :

• Recueillir et analyser des données empiriques, à la fois qualitatives et quantitatives, sur les

obligations en matière de rapports et planification existantes dans l’acquis énergétique de

l’Union Européenne. Par exemple : les coûts (c’est-à-dire les charges administratives) et les

bénéfices des obligations, le degré de coordination entre elles et les déficits d’information

dans le cadre de l’Union de l’Énergie selon les cinq critères d’évaluation prévus pour la

stratégie « Mieux Légiférer » : efficacité, pertinence, cohérence et valeur ajoutée de

l’intervention communautaire ;

• Identifier des possibilités de rationalisation et simplification.

B. Analyse d’impact :

• Analyser les options visant à : i) rationaliser les obligations en matière de rapports et

planification à la lumière du système de gouvernance de l’Union de l’Énergie et ii) réduire les

charges administratives, en ligne avec les critères de la stratégie « Mieux Légiférer »

• Évaluer le potentiel d’intégration des obligations de planification actuelles dans des plans

nationaux uniques pour l’énergie et le climat, comme envisagé par la Stratégie « Union de

l’Énergie » ;

• Quantifier les impacts (coûts et bénéfices), particulièrement la réduction de coûts grâce à la

simplification ;

• Faire des recommandations sur des développements potentiels de la législation communautaire

afin de promouvoir une structure d’obligations optimisée en matière de rapports et de

planification pour l’après 2020.

7 Fitness Check Roadmap: Streamlining reporting and planning obligations in the EU energy acquis [REFIT], http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf; Inception Impact Assessment: Energy Union Governance – Planning, Reporting and Monitoring obligations, http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_029_energy_union_governance_planning_and_reporting_en.pdf 8 A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy, COM(2015)080 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:80:FIN

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf






xviii

Méthodologie

L’étude s’appuie sur deux méthodologies en lien avec les deux parties de l’étude. En outre, les outils

développés pour cette étude suivent les recommandations de la « Boîte à Outils » de la Stratégie

« Mieux Légiférer » de la Commission européenne. Les méthodologies se basent sur plusieurs outils :

• Analyse documentaire: analyse de la législation et des obligations en matière de rapports et

de planification ; examen des évaluations et des analyses d’impact existantes; examen des

résultats de l'étude parallèle menée par la DG CLIMA ; analyse de la littérature. Cette analyse

documentaire est la base de l'analyse des obligations existantes et nourrit l'évaluation et

l’analyse d'impact ;

• Analyse des logiques d’intervention : le but de l’analyse des logiques d'intervention est

d’identifier de manière exhaustive puis d’analyser les textes législatifs et leurs obligations en

matière de rapports et de planification. Ce travail permet d’identifier les besoins, les objectifs

spécifiques (associés aux obligations en matière de rapports et planification dans les

différentes dispositions législatives), les éléments de ces obligations, les impacts et les

résultats. Cette analyse sert principalement l’évaluation ;

• Enquête en ligne avec des représentants des États membres et de la Commission

européenne : le but de l'enquête a été de recueillir des informations pour estimer i) les coûts

de l’évaluation dans le cadre de la Méthode des Coûts Standards (« Standard Cost Model »), ii)

les bénéfices perçus ainsi que iii) les informations pour l'analyse d'impact. Le groupe visé par

l’enquête comprenait différents ministères et directions, agences de l'énergie, entre autres,

au niveau des États membres, ainsi qu'un échantillon de fonctionnaires de la Commission

européenne9. Les résultats de l'enquête ont été utilisés surtout pour l'évaluation ;

• Entretiens avec des représentants des États membres, de la Commission européenne et

des agences - 31 entretiens10 ont été réalisés avec différents ministères, directions et agences

de l'énergie au niveau des États membres et avec un échantillon de fonctionnaires de la

Commission et d’agences de l’Union Européenne. Des questionnaires sur mesure ont été

utilisés pour recueillir des informations pertinentes pour l'évaluation et en particulier pour

l'analyse d'impact.

Les méthodologies et les méthodes utilisées dans cette étude sont robustes pour l'évaluation

quantitative des coûts et à l'évaluation qualitative des avantages (basée sur l'enquête avec les États

membres). Les résultats de l’analyse documentaire sont également robustes, car tous les textes

législatifs pertinents ont été examinés et analysés, ainsi que leurs analyses d'impact et évaluations,

ainsi que tous les documents et la littérature pertinente. Les résultats des entretiens et de l'enquête

avec les représentants de la Commission européenne s’appuient sur un échantillon représentatif, et

doivent être interprétés avec prudence. Afin de proposer des recommandations fortes et robustes,

l’étude a combiné toutes ces méthodes.

Analyse des obligations en matière de rapports et planification

Dans l'acquis énergétique actuel de l'UE, chaque politique énergétique prévoit des obligations en

matière de de rapports et de planification, ce qui en a créé plusieurs. Cette étude a analysé 58

9 Les 110 personnes qui ont répondu à l’enquête ont fourni 247 réponses sur les obligations spécifiques. Chaque répondant a fourni des informations pour une à 11 obligations. 10 Quelques entretiens ont eu plusieurs répondants ; 38 représentants ont été interviewés au total.


xix

obligations en matière de rapports et 15 obligations de planification, ainsi que 6 obligations

d’évaluations et 11 obligations en matière de données statistiques (donc 90 obligations au total),

contenues dans 31 textes législatifs. La plupart des obligations sont liées à l’intégration du marché

européen de l'énergie (35), suivie par l'efficacité énergétique (15) et l'énergie nucléaire (15), la sécurité

énergétique et la solidarité et la confiance (13) et la décarbonisation de l'économie (6). Six obligations

n’ont pas pu être classées dans ces catégories. Certaines obligations, notamment les obligations en

matière d'énergie nucléaire, ne font pas partie du cadre de l’Union de l’Énergie et ont donc été

considérées comme une catégorie distincte.

Les obligations visent à: i) fournir des informations sur la mise en œuvre nationale et la conformité

avec les règles communautaires; ii) suivre les progrès par rapport aux objectifs et alerter sur la

nécessité de réformes politiques; iii) accroître la transparence et la confiance du public; et iv) partager

des informations dans un sens général.

Cette étude se concentre principalement sur les obligations des États membres et de la Commission

européenne. Toutefois, dans le but d'identifier le potentiel de rationalisation, quelques obligations

d'autres entités dans l'acquis énergétique sont également pertinentes, comme par exemple les

obligations de l'ACER, de l’ENTSO-E, de l’ENTSOG et des GRT11. Les obligations sont destinées à

informer les institutions européennes, les partenaires sociaux, les parties prenantes et le grand public.

24 obligations font usage de modèles de déclaration, soit obligatoires soit optionnels. Ils sont

principalement fournis par la Commission européenne pour les États membres, même si deux rapports

produits par la Commission européenne font usage d'une structure type.

Évaluation coûts-bénéfices

Les coûts varient considérablement par obligation entre les États membres, ainsi que par domaine. Les

coûts totaux des États membres sont estimés à près de 13 millions d'euros par an pour les obligations de

rapports et près de 7 millions d'euros par an pour les obligations de planification existantes. Les

domaines d'action qui représentent la plus grande partie des coûts totaux en matière de production de

rapports sont le Marché Intérieur de l’Énergie et l'efficacité énergétique, chacun ayant des coûts

estimés à environ 5 millions d'euros par an.

En termes de catégories de coûts spécifiques, celle des équipements et logiciels représente la part la

plus élevée pour les obligations en matière de rapports (avec une valeur estimée près de 6 millions

d'euros par an au niveau de l'UE), suivie par les coûts des activités de sous-traitance et

d’externalisation de services (à hauteur de 4 millions d’euros par an pour les obligations en matière de

rapports) et le temps du personnel (3 millions d'euros par an pour les obligations en matière de

rapports). Pour les obligations de planification, la catégorie de coûts annuels estimés les plus élevés est

celle de l'externalisation et la sous-traitance (4 millions d’euros), suivie de celle des coûts

d'équipements et de logiciels et des frais de personnel (environ 1 million d’euros chacun).

Bien que les coûts administratifs puissent être élevés, environ 63% des répondants au sondage REFIT FC

(quel que soit le domaine) sont positifs sur les coûts des obligations en matière de rapports et de

planification, les considérant en général proportionnels aux bénéfices («assez» ou «dans une large

11 Gestionnaires de réseau de transport


xx

mesure »), et environ la moitié d'entre eux les estimant justifiés. À travers les différents domaines,

environ la moitié des répondants ont donné des réponses positives sur la proportionnalité des coûts,

même si certains domaines de l'énergie, comme que l'efficacité énergétique, ont des coûts beaucoup

plus élevés que d'autres.

Les coûts de chaque obligation ont également été évalués qualitativement (et classés comme faibles,

moyens ou élevés). La majorité des obligations des États membres et de la Commission européenne sont

classées dans le groupe «coûts moyens», compris entre 1 689 euros (premier quartile) et 26 355 euros

(troisième quartile). Les obligations en matière de rapports statistiques ont été estimées comme celles

ayant généralement les coûts les plus bas. L'évaluation des coûts, en particulier des obligations des

États membres, est censée être robuste grâce à une couverture relativement complète des États

membres dans l'enquête.

L'évaluation qualitative est relativement robuste pour la plupart des obligations, puisque nous avons eu

un échantillon suffisamment grand de répondants. La collecte de données quantitatives sur les

avantages n'a pas été jugée possible ni robuste, car les répondants n’ont pas été en mesure de donner

une estimation quantitative fiable. Il serait important de mieux informer les États membres à l'avenir

sur l'utilité et sur les avantages des obligations en matière de rapports. Sur les 46 obligations des États

membres, 18 ont des avantages globaux élevés et 24 ont des avantages modérés. Sur les 36 obligations

de la Commission, 12 ont été considérés comme ayant des bénéfices élevés et 10 sont estimés d’avoir

des bénéfices modérés. Notre évaluation indique que le plus grand nombre d'avantages se concentre

dans les domaines de la transparence de la politique énergétique, de la cohérence et comparabilité des

données, de la qualité et précision des données, et de l'amélioration de la conformité avec les règles.

Les domaines avec le plus faible nombre d'avantages sont ceux de la transparence des investissements

dans l'énergie, suivi des objectifs climatiques, des objectifs d'énergies renouvelables et des mesures de

sécurité.

Résultats de l’évaluation

L'évaluation des obligations existantes en matière de rapports et de planification, basée sur les cinq

critères de la stratégie « Mieux Légiférer », a été fondée sur l'intégration et le recoupement des

résultats de toutes les méthodes employées. Les obligations en matière de rapports et de planification

qui ont eu des scores faibles sur certains des cinq critères seront discutées dans la section des

recommandations et dans la conclusion.

Efficacité

Les obligations en matière de rapports et planification ont une contribution positive en ce qui concerne

la grande majorité des objectifs. L'objectif pour lequel les obligations contribuent le plus fortement est

celui du suivi de la conformité avec les règles. Les résultats de l'enquête et des entretiens confirment

que la grande majorité des obligations ont été jugées très efficaces pour atteindre leurs objectifs alors

la plupart des autres obligations ont été jugées modérément efficaces.

Efficience

La production de rapports et la planification apportent une contribution importante à la réalisation des

objectifs des politiques. Même si les données recueillies ne nous permettent pas de tirer des

conclusions solides sur les changements politiques réels obtenus grâce à ces obligations, les parties


xxi

prenantes considèrent ces obligations comme utiles pour mettre en avant des changements au niveau

national, en particulier les obligations de planification.

De nombreuses obligations sont très lourdes pour les États membres et pour la Commission européenne,

mais les avantages sont reconnus. L'enquête REFIT FC et les entretiens ont confirmé l'existence de

plusieurs bénéfices des obligations en matière des rapports et de la planification. Par exemple, elles

auraient contribué à l'amélioration de la conformité, à la vérification de la transposition de normes, au

suivi de la mise en œuvre, à l’amélioration de la qualité des données et à l’augmentation de

transparence.

Des plateformes digitales et des modèles communs de déclaration de rapport sont utilisés pour 24

obligations. Bien qu'il n'y ait pas suffisamment de preuves pour quantifier l'impact de ces modèles sur la

diminution de la charge administrative des rapports, les entretiens suggèrent qu'en général ces

plateformes et les modèles sont très utiles et pratiques pour les États membres. On note également

l’usage des plateformes en ligne pour produire des rapports et pour collecter des données. Cela rend

l'analyse des données plus facile, en normalisant le format des données et leur emplacement dans la

plateforme. Aucun de ces ensembles de données n’est suffisamment détaillé pour permettre une

analyse «big data» (en utilisant des ensembles de données très détaillées et en grande quantité), même

si certains États membres possèdent ces données.

Cohérence

Il y a des incohérences et des inefficacités dans les obligations actuelles. La périodicité va d’une fois

par semaine à une fois tous les 10 ans, ce qui impose un défi pour la rationalisation des obligations. Il y

a des chevauchements dans la communication des données, ainsi qu’entre les données déclarées par les

États Membres à la Commission (DG Ener) et les données produites pour les bases de données

d'Eurostat. L'analyse quantitative a identifié 27 indicateurs pour quatre textes de loi sur lesquels les

États Membres doivent produire des rapports, qui se chevauchent avec des indicateurs dans la base de

données d'Eurostat. Quatre autres indicateurs ont des chevauchements partiels. Ces textes de loi ont un

potentiel évident de rationalisation. D’ailleurs, 41% des répondants au sondage ont indiqué qu'ils sont

tenus de déclarer les mêmes données dans plus d'une obligation de rapports.

Il est également possible d'améliorer la cohérence entre les obligations dans les domaines de l'énergie

et le changement climatique. Il ressort que les obligations en matière de rapports et de planification

dans l’acquis énergétique de l'UE apportent une contribution modérée aux objectifs climatiques, mais

les réponses des intervenants varient fortement sur ce point. Il y a plusieurs chevauchements et

incohérences entre les obligations en matière de rapports et de planification au titre du MMR, RED et

EED qui mériteraient d’être rationalisés et il y a une potentielle rationalisation avec l'outil SHARES

d’Eurostat.

Pertinence

Presque toutes les obligations qui ont été examinées sont adaptées à l'usage pour laquelle elles sont

destinées. La quasi-totalité des justifications données par la règlementation pour les obligations en

matière de rapports et de planification peuvent être liées facilement à un objectif de l'Union de

l’Énergie. Les répondants à l’enquête REFIT FC ont des avis divergents sur la question de savoir si les

obligations actuelles sont à jour. Quatre obligations au titre du EED et RED ont été perçues comme


xxii

étant «pas du tout à jour» par certains répondants, mais là encore, les avis sont très variés et ne

permettent pas de conclusions définitives.

Valeur ajoutée de l’intervention de l’UE

Les obligations contribuent à la coordination de la politique énergétique de l'UE, mais les effets sur

l'alignement de la politique énergétique des États membres ne font pas consensus. Les entretiens avec

des représentants de la DG Energie ont confirmé que les rapports des États membres fournissent

des informations à la Commission européenne qui ne sont généralement pas disponibles par d'autres

moyens, et permettent à la Commission européenne de suivre la mise en œuvre des politiques. Il

semble que la valeur ajoutée européenne des rapports varie selon les domaines politiques, avec une

contribution plus positive dans les domaines où il y a davantage de plans relativement cohérents et des

données standardisées (par exemple, les énergies renouvelables). Il y a consensus sur le principe que

les États membres peuvent apprendre les uns des autres grâce aux données fournies dans les rapports,

mais il n'y a pas d’exemples qui montrent que cela arrive effectivement, et les répondants sont plutôt

sceptiques sur ce point.

Notre conclusion sur la contribution de la production de rapports et de la planification à la valeur

ajoutée européenne nécessite de regarder l'objectif d'avoir une politique énergétique au niveau

européen. Si, comme nous le supposons, le but d’une telle politique est d'aligner les objectifs, laissant

aux États membres une grande liberté pour décider les détails de mise en œuvre de ces objectifs, la

valeur ajoutée européenne des rapports réside en grande partie dans la collecte et la compilation des

données des États membres individuellement afin d’obtenir des données de niveau de l'UE, ce qui

permet l’évaluation des politiques au niveau de l’Union. La compilation de données au niveau de l'UE et

les informations sur les politiques permettent aux États membres d'apprendre les uns des autres, mais il

est difficile d’établir la causalité dans la conception des politiques des États membres

individuellement.

Résultats des analyses d’impact

L'analyse d'impact (AI) est une évaluation économique qui analyse l'impact de cinq options de politiques

(OP), à savoir l’«Option de base » (aucun changement de politique), «OP1 orientations et suggestions»,

« OP2 rationalisation de la législation sectorielle », « OP3a actes législatifs simples: rationalisation de

toutes les obligations » et « OP3b Acte législatif unique: rationalisation des obligations sélectionnées ».

L'impact de chaque OP a été évalué en fonction des aspects suivants: (1) les coûts directs, y compris les

coûts de la mise en œuvre initiale des interventions et les coûts des activités de production de rapports

et de planification, (2) les bénéfices directs, y compris les économies de coûts, les gains d’efficacité du

système, l'amélioration de la qualité de l'information, la simplification des procédures, l’amélioration

de la cohérence des rapports, et les avantages spécifiques pour les entreprises; (3) les impacts indirects

ou plus larges sur la transparence des politiques nationales et européennes, sur la qualité des

statistiques et sur les politiques énergétiques et climatiques nationales; et (4) les impacts sur les

objectifs de l'Union de l'énergie, à savoir les cinq dimensions - la sécurité énergétique, la solidarité et

la confiance; l’intégration pleine du marché intérieur de l'énergie; l'efficacité énergétique, contribuant

à la modération de la demande d'énergie; la décarbonisation de l'économie; et l’amélioration de la

recherche et innovation dans les technologies sobres en carbone avec soutien financier à de tels

projets. Les coûts d'introduction/d'adoption et de la coordination annuelle du Plan national de l'énergie

et du climat par les États membres ont été considérés dans l’OP1, l’OP2, l’OP3a et l’OP3b.


xxiii

Les résultats de l’analyse d’impact montrent que le coût de la mise en œuvre initiale correspond aux

coûts pour la Commission européenne, les 28 États membres, l'investissement dans le système

électronique unique de déclaration de rapports, ainsi que le coût de développement et l'adoption des

Plans nationaux de l’énergie et du climat. L'introduction de changements dans l'option de base

coûterait à la Commission européenne et à l'ensemble des 28 États membres environ 13,8 millions

d’euros, avec OP1 - 20,6 millions d’euros, avec OP2 50,1 millions d’euros, avec OP3a près de 36 millions

d’euros, et avec OP3b près de 27 millions d’euros.

En termes de coût cumulatif annuel associé aux obligations de rapports et de planification (y compris

les coûts liés à la nouvelle coordination pour les Plans nationaux de l’énergie et du climat), la sous-

traitance et l’usage d'équipement par les États membres, l’option OP3b semble être l'option la moins

coûteuse (environ 20 millions d’euros par an) en raison de la réduction d’efforts de production de

rapports au titre du système de déclaration unique. Par rapport à l’« option de base » (21 millions

d’euros par an), cette option est moins coûteuse d’à peu près 1 million d’euros par an. Les coûts

annuels pour l’OP1 et pour l’OP3a sont proches, avec des estimations de 21,7 millions d’euros par an

pour l’OP1 et 22 millions d’euros par an pour l’OP3b. Les estimations pour l’OP2 atteignent un coût

annuel de 29,5 millions d’euros par an. Ces estimations concluent qu’OP3b permet de réaliser des

économies par rapport à l’option de base, tandis que trois autres options ont des coûts administratifs

annuels plus élevés. Les gains d'efficacité ne sont pas atteints par l’OP1, l’OP2 et l’OP3a parce que les

réductions de coûts liées à l'intégration et l'abrogation des obligations sont inférieures aux coûts plus

élevés de coordination des Plans nationaux de l’énergie et du climat.

Dans l'ensemble, les analyses de la mise en œuvre et des coûts administratifs annuels ont montré une

nette préférence pour OP3b, qui est aussi la seule option qui permette d'obtenir des économies

annuelles de coûts.

L'analyse des avantages directs et des impacts des politiques renforce la préférence pour l’OP3b.

L’OP3b présente les avantages et les impacts positifs les plus élevés pour la plupart des bénéfices et

des catégories d'impact, tandis que l’OP2 présente des valeurs proches. Cela peut provenir du fait que

la portée de la rationalisation de l’OP2 et l’OP3b est similaire, à savoir le même ensemble d'obligations

simplifiées, rationalisées et intégrées dans les Plans nationaux de l’énergie et du climat. Cela devrait

donner des résultats similaires, telles que les obligations liées soit par les législations sectorielles ou

par un acte législatif unique, tous contribuant aux Plans nationaux de l’énergie et du climat et utilisant

le système électronique unique pour les rapports. Dans le même temps, l’OP2 peut souffrir du manque

de coordination et générer de nombreux risques et incertitudes dans la mise en œuvre. L’OP3b est

également préférable en raison de son impact positif attendu sur les objectifs de « Mieux Légiférer » et

sur les objectifs globaux de l'énergie et du climat.

Les entretiens et les résultats de l’enquête en ligne ont également démontré une préférence plus

élevée pour l’option OP3b, avec l'intégration des obligations les plus pertinentes par l’acte législatif

unique et les Plans nationaux de l’énergie et du climat. La faisabilité de l’OP3a a été mise en doute

dans la majorité des entretiens, alors que l’enquête en ligne a souligné les risques liés à l'intégration de

toutes les obligations en matière de rapports dans un rapport unique. Par conséquent, on peut conclure

que l’OP3b est préférée par la majorité des parties prenantes dans l’enquête en ligne et les interviews.


xxiv

Finalement, les options politiques ont été comparées en considérant les cinq critères de la stratégie

« Mieux Légiférer » ainsi que les coûts et le temps nécessaires pour la mise en œuvre et le maintien de

ces options. Cette évaluation a également conclu que l’OP3b aurait un impact plus élevé que les autres

options. Cette option a reçu une évaluation positive dans les cinq critères suivants : «efficacité»,

«efficience», «pertinence», «valeur ajouté de l’intervention de l’UE/subsidiarité» et le critère de

«proportionnalité». L’OP3a et l’OP2 présentent une performance plus faible pour de nombreux critères,

l’«efficacité» étant le point le plus faible de l’OP2. L’OP1 est l’option dont la mise en œuvre est la plus

rapide et moins coûteuse, mais ses objectifs sont peu ambitieux et les impacts estimés sont faibles, ce

qui en fait une option peu intéressante. L’OP3a et l’OP3b ont des coûts similaires à l’OP2, mais peuvent

être mis en œuvre plus rapidement. Les résultats estimés de l’analyse de l’OP3a sont limités par la

question de sa faisabilité, les risques liés à sa complexité et la perte d’informations importantes

nécessaires à l'élaboration des politiques.

Ainsi, l'évaluation cumulative basée sur tous les critères montre que l'option préférable est l’OP3b.

Recommandations

Recommandations générales pour les obligations en matière de rapports et de planification

En général, notre analyse suggère qu'il existe un potentiel d'amélioration en termes de:

• Alignement de la périodicité des obligations liées à des sujets similaires ou connexes (le plus

possible);

• Alignement de la périodicité de rapports avec les réalités du marché (par exemple, la vitesse

avec laquelle les indicateurs pertinents changent) ;

• Fixation de délais de soumission communs pour les obligations de rapports dont la périodicité

est identique ou dont les actes législatifs sont les mêmes ;

• Réduction du chevauchement entre les obligations et modifications des obligations

redondantes.

Recommandations pour les Plans nationaux de l’énergie et du climat

L'évaluation a permis de tirer les recommandations suivantes pour les Plans nationaux de l’énergie et

du climat:

• Les obligations liées à l’énergie et au climat devraient être intégrées dans les Plans nationaux

de l’énergie et du climat autant que possible. Cela permettra d'améliorer la vue d’ensemble

des obligations en matière de rapports et de planification de l'acquis énergétique de l'UE, ainsi

que de soutenir l'interaction entre les politiques climatiques et énergétiques ;

• Les obligations liées à l'énergie nucléaire et au marché intérieur de l'énergie devraient être

conservées séparément. Les deux nécessitent des informations très techniques (mais utiles) et

détaillées, ce qui devrait être conservé. L'intégration de toutes ces obligations dans les Plans

nationaux de l’énergie et du climat ne contribuerait probablement pas à améliorer la vue

d'ensemble de l'acquis énergétique, ni à soutenir l'interaction entre les politiques climatiques

et énergétiques. Les obligations liées au nucléaire ont une périodicité de rapports inférieure et

un contexte juridique différent. Les obligations liées au marché intérieur de l’énergie se

rapportent à de nombreuses entités déclarantes. Elles devraient être alignées autant que

possible avec Eurostat et avec le secteur de l’énergie ;

• Les informations quantitatives relatives au passé (rapports) doivent être remises directement à

Eurostat, afin d'éviter des retards dans les rapports et d’assurer la transparence et l'accès à


xxv

l'information. Les informations qualitatives prospectives (planification) doivent être remises à

la DG Energie ;

• Pour assurer leur efficacité, les plans doivent être mis à jour périodiquement, au moins tous

les 1 ou 2 ans. Les obligations de planification devraient être simplifiées pour diminuer la

lourdeur administrative. Les rapports d'étape devraient être directement intégrés dans ces

plans ;

• Une forte coordination entre les DG responsables (au niveau européen) et les Ministères et

directions (au niveau des États membres) est la clé pour une périodicité adéquate des Plans

nationaux de l’énergie et du climat. Les articles de ces Plans devraient être répartis entre les

responsables de ces politiques.

Recommandations pour intégrer les obligations existantes en matière de rapports et de

planification à l’acquis énergétique européen

• L'OP2, l'OP3a et PO3b permettraient d'améliorer la rationalisation et l'intégration des

obligations actuelles. Cependant, l’OP3b atteindrait mieux cet objectif car elle intègre

uniquement les principales obligations et assure un processus plus efficace et rapide grâce à

un seul acte législatif plutôt que par la révision de la législation sectorielle ;

• L’OP3b fournirait également une meilleure vue d'ensemble des obligations qui soutiennent les

cinq dimensions de la stratégie de l'Union de l'énergie, ce qui n’est pas le cas pour l’OP2, où ce

soutien dépendrait de la législation du secteur ;

• La rationalisation et l'intégration à travers des approches législatives contribueraient

également à lutter contre le problème de la grande quantité de données à traiter par les États

membres et la Commission, ce qui ne serait pas le cas dans des options moins ambitieuses.

Toutes les duplications et les chevauchements devraient être également abordés à travers les

options législatives ;

• La rationalisation et l'intégration des obligations ne peuvent guère elles-mêmes jouer un rôle

majeur dans la promotion des objectifs de l'Union de l’énergie. Il y a beaucoup d'autres

facteurs qui peuvent jouer un rôle plus important.

Recommandations pour réduire le fardeau administratif des rapports (coûts actuels)

• Compte tenu des hypothèses de l’étude, la seule option qui offre des économies en termes de

coûts administratifs et de déclaration de rapports actuels est l’OP3b, qui rationalise les

obligations existantes sélectionnées en matière de rapports et de planification en un seul acte

législatif et un Plan national de l’énergie et du climat obligatoire et intégré. Cette option est

également avantageuse car elle présente de meilleurs résultats pour l’analyse d’impact.

Recommandations visant à accroître les avantages d'un système d'information

• L’OP3b a un net avantage sur les autres options de politique car elle atteint l’objectif souhaité

de garder les obligations mieux adaptées aux objectifs de l'Union de l'énergie et évite les

fardeaux inutiles causés par un champ excessivement large de déclaration de rapports, comme

dans l’OP3a ;

• La mise en place d'un système unique de déclaration électronique fournirait davantage de

gains d'efficacité et de cohérence, mais un tel système devra être bien conçu pour garantir

qu'il soit simple et facile à utiliser à la fois par les États membres et la Commission.


xxvi

Recommandations pour l'option privilégiée

D'après l'analyse, l'option de politique 3b est recommandée pour les raisons suivantes :

• Elle est la seule option qui garantisse des économies de coûts annuelles contrairement aux

autres options de politique, qui ont un coût annuel plus élevé par rapport à l’option de base.

Le coût initial de mise en œuvre de cette option est également nettement inférieur à celui des

alternatives comparables (OP3a et OP2) ;

• Elle prévoit les modifications législatives au système actuel qui sont nécessaires pour

rationaliser et intégrer substantiellement les obligations liées à l'énergie et au climat. Sans ces

modifications législatives, le système actuel restera en place, car la législation devra être

suivie ;

• L’OP3b permet l'intégration d'une partie des obligations dans un nouvel acte législatif unique,

lui donnant ainsi une base juridique solide. Elle permet également qu’une partie des

obligations puissent rester dans la législation sectorielle, en particulier celles qui : i) ne font

pas parti des Plans nationaux intégrés de l’énergie et du climat et/ou ii) produisent plus

d’avantages en demeurant séparées que dans un plan intégré. Ainsi, il n'y aurait pas de risques

de perte de données et d'information à cause de l'intégration, ce qui pourrait être le cas dans

l’OP3a où toutes les obligations seraient intégrées ;

• Un modèle obligatoire de déclaration donnerait plus de cohérence entre les données

communiquées par les différents États membres. Cependant, le modèle doit être suffisamment

flexible pour tenir compte des spécificités de chaque pays ;

• L’OP3b introduit un système électronique unique de déclaration, ce qui est perçu positivement

selon notre analyse, pourvu qu’il soit développé et utilisé de manière adéquate ;

• En termes de temps de mise en œuvre, l’OP3b est également préférable, car elle nécessite

moins de temps que l’OP2. Même si cette option requiert plus de temps que l’OP1, elle produit

des résultats nettement supérieurs.


3

Introduction 1This document is the final study report for the Fitness Check Evaluation in the EU Energy acquis and

Impact Assessment of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union. The report presents our

conclusions resulting from our Fitness Check Evaluation of Planning and Reporting Obligations in the EU

Energy acquis12 and in support of an Impact Assessment in view of legislative proposals on streamlining

of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union (Energy Union Governance).13

Context of this study 1.1

Planning obligations for both Member States and the Commission are often included in new acts, with

reporting obligations included in nearly every legislative act. The main goals of these obligations for

Member States are to provide information on national implementation, to track progress and to

evaluate progress against policy goals, to identify any needs for policy reforms and to ensure EU law is

enforced effectively at MS level. Obligations for the Commission generally aim to enforce

implementation of and adherence to EU law, and to inform the EU institutions, social partners,

stakeholders and the general public. The current EU energy acquis includes over 70 regular planning

and reporting obligations as well as various irregular, ad hoc or one-off obligations.

As part of the Better Regulation agenda14, the planning and reporting obligations of the energy acquis

are being subjected to a REFIT Fitness Check. REFIT is the European Commission's Regulatory Fitness

and Performance programme to make EU law simpler and to reduce regulatory costs without

compromising policy objectives.15 The goal of this Fitness Check is both to identify potential for

simplification and burden reduction within the set of planning and reporting obligations, and to assess

to what extent the current obligations are coherent, effective, efficient, relevant and have EU added

value. This fitness check is the first part of this study and builds on the Fitness Check Roadmap on

streamlining planning and reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis.16

In parallel with this REFIT fitness check, the Energy Union Framework Strategy17 stipulated the

requirement for integrated governance and monitoring process built around national energy and climate

plans. Part of this requirement also involves streamlining the planning and reporting obligations within

the energy acquis, potentially by adapting existing or shaping new EU legislation. The second part of

this study is to provide support to the Impact Assessment for this potential new EU legislation. Based

inter alia on this study, the Commission foresees in 2016 a proposal on streamlining planning and

reporting obligations in the climate and energy fields to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and

to align planning and reporting obligations with the Energy Union Framework Strategy.18

12 Fitness Check Roadmap: Streamlining reporting and planning obligations in the EU energy acquis [REFIT], http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf 13 Inception Impact Assessment: Energy Union Governance – Planning, Reporting and Monitoring obligations, http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_029_energy_union_governance_planning_and_reporting_en.pdf 14 COM(2015) 215. Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda 15 COM(2015) 610. Commission Work Programme 2016: No time for business as usual, Annex 2 16 Fitness Check Roadmap (2015) on streamlining planning and reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis (REFIT). Roadmaps for evaluations and fitness checks are published on http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm. 17 COM/2015/080. A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy 18 COM(2015) 572. State of the Energy Union 2015


http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm


4

These two activities present an opportunity to simultaneously reduce the administrative burden, exploit

synergies and potential for simplification, and prepare for the future requirements of the Energy Union.

Objectives and scope 1.2

The overarching objective of this study is to contribute to the REFIT Evaluation/FC of the reporting and

planning obligations in the EU energy acquis and to contribute in this context to optimising and

updating the planning and reporting obligations in the energy and climate field, both for the

Commission and for Member States. An important factor in this exercise is the Commission's aim to set-

up a reliable and transparent governance system without any unnecessary administrative burden for the

Energy Union 2020 to 2030 framework. This objective is pursued by two distinct but closely interrelated

parts: A) A REFIT Fitness Check Evaluation of Member States’ and Commission’s planning and reporting

obligations in the EU energy acquis, and B) support for an Impact Assessment of energy and climate

planning and reporting obligations in the Energy Union governance system. The objectives of the two

parts of the study are as follows:

A. Fitness Check

• Collect and analyse evidence, both qualitatively and quantitatively, about the existing

planning and reporting obligations enshrined in the EU energy acquis, their costs (i.e.

administrative burden) and benefits, the degree of coordination among them and any

knowledge gaps in the context of the Energy Union, based on the five Better Regulation

criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value;

• Identify possibilities for streamlining and simplification.

B. Impact Assessment:

• Analyse the policy options for streamlining of planning and reporting in view of the Energy

Union governance system and for reducing the administrative burden, in line with the Better

Regulation criteria;

• Assess the potential to integrate the current planning obligations into one national energy and

climate plan as envisioned in the Energy Union Strategy;

• Quantify the impacts (costs and benefits), in particular to identify the cost savings from

simplification;

• Provide guidance on how EU legislation would have to be developed to facilitate an optimised

planning and reporting structure post-2020.

The planning and reporting obligations under consideration are limited to those of a regular nature

(e.g. weekly, monthly, yearly or multi-yearly) as defined by the Terms of Reference. One-off and

irregular planning and reporting requirements are therefore out of scope, except for reviews of EU

energy legislation which are in-scope even if they are conducted only once.

Additionally, for the Fitness Check evaluation, the scope is limited to the planning and reporting

obligations in the energy field since a parallel study is assessing the obligations for the climate field.

For the Impact Assessment, both the climate and energy reporting obligations will be in scope as a

result of the requirement for national energy and climate plans after 2020.


5

Structure of this report 1.3

This (draft) final report is structured as follows:

• Abbreviations table;

• Executive summary, including the purpose and status of this report, the activities undertaken

and the conclusions;

• Chapter 1 is the introduction summarising the context of this study, the objectives and scope,

and the structure of the report;

• Chapter 2 focuses on the overall methodology and approach for the Fitness check and the

Impact Assessment (IA). First it explains the methods used for collecting data to answer the

questions related to the five evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance,

coherence, and EU added value) for the fitness check, which covers also quantification of costs

and cost/benefit, as well as possibilities for simplification or lift burdens from SMEs. This is

followed by an explanation of the Impact Assessment, including the Policy Options and impacts

that are assessed. It ends with an overview of the tasks that are preformed, the methods used

and the results/outputs;

• Chapter 3, Annex E and Annex G provide analyses of the data on the obligations from the desk

research (chapter 3), the MS and EC survey (Annex G), and the stakeholder interviews (Annex

E). The results from these analyses provide input for both the Fitness check and the Impact

Analysis.

o Chapter 3 (desk research): explains which obligations were included, how they were

categorized and which information was gathered on each obligation. Also several

analyses are performed, including an analysis of the frequency, intervention logics

and quantitative indicators;

o Annex G: shows the results of the MS and EC survey that was performed for this study,

and analyses them question by question;

o Annex E: describes and analyses the findings of the interviews that were conducted

with the stakeholders. The responses are analysed with respect to the Evaluation

criteria (see above) and questions, Policy Options and their relevant impacts.

• Chapter 4 presents an assessment of the costs and benefits of each planning and reporting

obligations. This is based on the cost and benefit analysis coming from the survey,

complemented by qualitative information from the interviews/ desk review and comprises

three parts: 4.1 Cost analysis; 4.2 Benefit analysis; 4.3 Evaluation along the 5 Better

Regulation criteria for each obligation;

• Part A: Evaluation: Chapter 5 presents the findings of the evaluation, with respect to the five

evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value,

quantification of costs and cost/benefit, as well as possibilities for simplification or lift

burdens from SMEs) and the conclusions and recommendations;

• Part B: Impact Assessment: Chapters 6-9 regard the Impact Assessment part of this study

o Chapter 6 presents the problem statement. Nine problems are explained that require

action to reduce inefficiencies and inconsistencies;

o Chapter 7 describes the four Policy Options that will be assessed (baseline, non-

binding soft guidance, sectoral legislation revision, one new single legislative act);

o Chapter 8 presents the initial analysis of the impacts. First the methodology and the

assessed impacts are introduced, followed by a description of the impacts for each

Policy Option;


6

o Chapter 9 presents a comparison of the different Policy Options. This will include a

section on conclusions and recommendations of the impact assessment.

• Annex A presents a complete list of obligations within the scope of this study;

• Annex B presents a list of the reviewed sources;

• Annex C is a list of the stakeholders that were interviewed;

• Annex D presents the interview questionnaire;

• Annex E contains a summary analysis of the responses from the interviews;

• Annex F shows the survey questionnaire;

• Annex G presents the survey results, including a description the country coverage of

obligations in the MS survey and detailed cost figures in the MS survey;

• Annex H presents detailed overviews of survey responses on effectiveness, on whether

obligations are still up to date, and on duplications in reporting;

• Annex I presents the assumptions used for the cost analysis of the impact assessment


7

Methodology and Approach 2 Approach and methodology 2.1

There are two main methodologies undertaken in this study (briefly explained below):

Part A Evaluation - concerning the Preparatory study for the Commission’s Fitness Check

Evaluation of Planning and Reporting Obligations in the EU Energy acquis, and

Part B Impact Assessment - concerning the Support for an Impact Assessment in view of legislative

proposals on streamlining of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union (Energy Union

Governance).

Both parts fall back on a number of methods:

• Desk review - review of the relevant pieces of legislation and their planning and reporting

obligations, review of existing evaluations and impact assessments, review of the results of the

parallel study conducted by DG CLIMA, any other literature that might be relevant. This review

is the basis for the analysis of existing obligations and it provides input to the evaluation and

impact assessment.

• Review of intervention logics – the aim of the review of intervention logics is to

comprehensively identify and analyse the relevant pieces of legislation and their reporting and

planning obligations in terms of the needs, specific objectives (associated with planning and

reporting in the various pieces of legislation), inputs, impacts, results and outputs. This review

supports primarily the evaluation.

• Online survey with the Member States and Commission officials - the aim of the survey was

to collect figures and data to estimate the costs for the Standard Cost Model assessment, the

perceived benefits as well as information for the evaluation and impact assessment. The target

audience included different ministries and directorates, energy agencies, etc. at the Member

State level as well as a sample of officials from the Commission19. The results of the survey

were used for the evaluation mainly.

• Interviews with the Member States and Commission officials and agencies – 36 interviews

were conducted with different ministries and directorates, energy agencies at the Member

State level and with a sample of Commission officials and its agencies. Tailored questionnaires

were used to collect information relevant for the evaluation and in particular the impact

assessment.

Part A - Evaluation 2.1.1

The first part of the study consists of an evaluation of the existing planning and reporting obligations

enshrined in the EU energy acquis against five evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance,

coherence, and EU added value, including quantification of costs and cost/benefit, as well as

possibilities for simplification or lift burdens from SMEs. The analysis is based on data derived from a

desk review, a stakeholder survey and stakeholder interviews.

The desk review used as a starting point a list of planning and reporting obligations identified by the

Commission through an initial screening. The initial list of obligations was subsequently updated by

19 In total 110 respondents provided 247 single obligation specific responses. Each respondent provided inputs for 1 to 11 obligations.


8

examining and analysing the source of obligations’ (Directives, Regulations, etc.). Any modifications to

the obligations initially identified by the Commission were sent to the Commission for approval. This

screening process resulted in the identification of 90 planning and reporting obligations, pertaining to

31 legislative acts. The final list of obligations can be found in Annex A.

The next step of the desk review was to collect and process the publicly available data for each of the

planning and reporting obligations included in study. A template in Excel format was set up for this

purpose and populated with data on several variables, including reporting frequency, intervention

logics, costs, benefits and indicators for each reporting/planning obligation. Data has been collected

from the sectoral legislation of the respective obligation, any impact assessments and evaluations with

respect to the legislation, and the actual plans or reports that were delivered to fulfil the obligation.

To supplement the desk-based research (in particular, as regards the costs and benefits of current

obligations and some specific evaluation questions), an online survey was implemented in the first

quarter of 2016 (MS survey: 22 February – 24 March; survey for European institutions and organisations:

28 February – 8 April). The surveys target agencies and ministries dealing with EU energy regulations in

the Member States, policy officers of the European Commission DG Energy and the Council of the

European Union dealing with various aspects of the EU energy regulations, and representatives of

relevant European Agencies, namely Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and the

Energy Community Secretariat. A total of 110 respondents completed the Member State survey (out of

approximately 850 officials targeted), while the survey addressed to EU-level actors received six valid

responses. No other EU institutions or organisations responded besides the European Commission.

Finally, we conducted in-depth interviews with 19 Commission officials, including one official from

Eurostat and ACER, and 17 Member State representatives. Answering evaluation questions was part of

the interviews.

The qualitative and quantitative evidence gathered through these three approaches was used to answer

a series of evaluation questions related to the five criteria considered in the evaluation. A final

evaluation matrix can be found in the Final Inception report.

Part B - Impact Assessment 2.1.2

The second part of the study aims to analyse the impact of different policy options for streamlining the

planning and reporting obligations of the EU energy acquis, assess the potential to integrate the current

planning obligations into one national energy and climate plan as envisioned in the Energy Union

Strategy, and provide guidance on how EU legislation would have to be developed to facilitate an

optimised planning and reporting structure post-2020.

The assessment considers four policy options (defined prior to this study in the Fitness Check Roadmap

for Streamlining reporting and planning obligations in the EU energy acquis [REFIT]20):

- Baseline scenario (no policy change): The baseline scenario is used as a reference for assessing

alternative policy options. It assumes an unchanged continuation of existing planning or reporting

and monitoring obligations, but no introduction of new obligations or of a template.

20 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf


9

- Policy option 1: Soft guidance to Member States on planning, reporting and monitoring: assumes

no legislative change, but there would be an introduction of a voluntary template and guidance.

- Policy option 2: Regulating planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy and

climate field through sector-specific EU energy and climate legislation: assumes a revision/

amendment of existing legislation post 2020 and provides a voluntary soft template and guidance,

as well as a single electronic reporting system.

- Policy option 3: Regulating planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy and

climate field in a single legislative act: assumes repeal of existing reporting obligation post 2020,

introduction of a new single legislative act, provides a mandatory template and a single electronic

reporting system based on the template. Under Option 3, we further distinguish between:

o Policy option 3a: Streamlining of all obligations; and

o Policy option 3b: Streamlining of most obligations.

Policy options are explained in detail in Chapter 7.

The methodology used in the Impact Assessment follows the standard approach based on policy options

comparison defined by the Better regulation toolbox. The analysis of each option examines several

categories of impacts based on specific indicators (e.g. administrative and reporting costs,

ICT/equipment cost, improved information quality, simpler and coherent reporting procedures).

Although the assessment focuses on analysing the direct costs and benefits, indirect impacts (i.e.

impacts on policy processes and the Energy Union objectives) are also considered to the extent

possible.

Data on each indicator was derived from the stakeholder survey (cost analysis), the interviews with

national and EU-level stakeholders. Once the results of the currently ongoing online stakeholder

consultation carried out by the EC was completed, they were integrated in the impact assessment

analysis. The results of the Evaluation component of the study were used to establish the baseline

scenario and to some extent the problem definition.

Following the assessment of impacts (relative to the baseline) for each policy option, the options were

compared based on the criteria of: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance to the objectives of EU energy

policy and of the Energy Union strategy), coherence with other obligations in the EU energy field and

climate policy, compliance with subsidiary and EU added value, and proportionality principles. The time

required to implement the action and the cumulative cost of actions were also considered.

Overview of our approach and tasks 2.1.3

An overview of the tasks, activities and results can be seen in Figure 2-1.


10

Figure 2-1 Overview of overall methodological approach (tasks, activities, output)

Key challenges/ limitations 2.2

Several challenges were encountered throughout the study:

Desk review

o The scope of the obligations is not easily determined. The Commission provided a list

of the main existing obligations at the start of the study. Additionally, some

obligations that were in this list were irregular or one-off obligations, which are in

principle out of the scope of this study. Throughout the desk study more obligations

were added to this list, but it remains a challenge to create a fully exhaustive list;

o Related to the first point, there was no clear definition available of ‘reviews of EU

energy legislation’, which are included in this study even when they are one-off.


11

Reviews are not always called reviews in the legislation. Therefore, a clear definition

was needed to determine what can be understand under reviews. The working

definition for this study is: “Obligations to evaluate the implementation or

effectiveness of a piece of legislation with the aim to identify improvements or

revisions to the legislation itself”21;

o Existing evaluations and impact assessments did not provide useful evidence to

support the purpose of our evaluation or impact assessment. The most useful were

recent evaluations or impact assessments of sectoral legislation, which includes a

template for the Member States to use to do the planning and reporting under that

legislation. This type of material included some qualitative assessment of using such a

template. Because of the little input from existing evaluations and impact

assessments, we have limited possibilities to crosscheck the findings of our own

research.

Survey

o Survey response has a good coverage across the EU Member states. Only four Member

States have not responded. This does not diminish the value of the information and

data that has been collected, as 110 respondents have provided inputs from over 800

potential respondents initially targeted. The respondents have often provided

information on more than obligation, resulting to a total of 247 obligation-specific

responses;

o The coverage of the obligations in the survey responses is full, but not optimal: there

is a low number of responses on some obligations, while high numbers on other. This

is especially critical for analysis of the administrative cost of the obligations, even if

cross-checks/comparisons could be made between different obligations to distinguish

any unsound responses. This limits the robustness of the cost assessment for these

obligations, and the overall cost assessment, which should be considered as

estimations only.

Interviews

o Due to the limited resources and time available for interviews, MS coverage was

limited to a representative sample of MSs22;

o The coverage of the obligations is also not complete, as specific pieces of legislation

were selected for the interviewees. Some Member States were not keen on

cooperating as they have been preparing a coordinated response at the national level.

Still, we managed to have a representative sample of MSs for the interviews.

o The fact that the public consultation, the online survey and the interviews were

running in parallel created some confusion among the Member State stakeholders

regarding their own purposes and overlaps. This resulted in some stakeholders

answering only to the online survey or the interviews, but not both. This limits the

robustness of the stakeholder responses, which have been assessed critically

throughout the study.

21 This does not include obligations that only investigate the extent to which an obligation has been put in practice, transposed into national law or has been effective in reaching its targets without any clear objective to evaluate and potentially modify the legislation as such. 22 The interviews included representatives from Germany, Denmark, Poland, France, Austria, Slovakia, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium. See also Annex C.


12

Impact assessment

o Since the evaluation study had to run partly in parallel to the impact assessment, a

detailed picture of the different policy options was not available when the interviews

were carried out. This limited their ability to clearly understand how the new

reporting system would be implemented and would function (in practice) under each

option. This created a challenge in discussing the changes to be brought by the three

new policy options. The respondents did provide suggestions on where efficiencies can

be introduced or improved. The responses have been assessed critically throughout

the Impact Assessment study.

General

o The horizontal character and broad scope of the study posed a challenge to gaining a

full understanding of the detailed peculiarities of specific obligations and their

implementation in each MS. The study aims to provide a comprehensive overview and

assessment of the obligations in the EU energy acquis, but does not claim that this

applies to the same extent to all relevant stakeholders. We have taken differences

between MS and obligations into account throughout the evaluation and impact

assessment, and describe how these can lead to different impacts.


13

Analysis of reporting and planning obligations 3 Preparation 3.1

The initial screening by the Commission of the planning and reporting obligations was used as the starting

point for the desk review. The obligations in this list have been processed in the following way to prepare

the initial set of data:

1. Select all identified obligations for DG Energy, including both reporting from Member States and

the Commission. Exclude DG CLIMA obligations;

2. Remove irregular and one-off obligations, except for one-off reviews of EU energy legislation that

are due after 1.1.2018, since these can be taken into account if a streamlining proposal is created;

3. Obligations to and by other organisations (e.g. IAEA, EASME) are generally excluded, except when

their specific relevance was made clear by the Commission or was recognized during the research.

Next, the obligations were categorised per topic, according to the five Energy Union dimensions:

• Energy security, solidarity and trust;

This dimension entails the diversification of supply (energy sources, suppliers, and routes),

enhanced coordination between stakeholders to ensure a high-level of energy security, a stronger

role for Europe in the global energy market and more transparency on energy (in particular gas)

supply.

• A fully-integrated European energy market;

In order to create a market that functions well with sufficient investment, energy markets need to

be connected through (cross-border) interconnections and existing energy legislation must be fully

implemented and enforced. Member States must cooperate when developing national energy

policies, consumers must be empowered to make informed decisions on energy consumption and

vulnerable consumers must be protected (e.g. reducing energy poverty).

• Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand;

Energy efficiency is seen as an energy source in its own right (i.e. as the value of energy saved). In

all economic sectors energy efficiency must be increased, but in particular in the transport and

buildings sector. Synergies between national energy efficiency policies, resource efficiency policies

and the circular economy must be established.

• Decarbonising the economy;

Climate policy is based on an EU-wide carbon market (EU emission trading system (ETS)), national

greenhouse gas reduction targets and an energy policy with a strong focus on the development of

renewable energy.

• Research, Innovation and Competitiveness.

A new strategy for research and innovation must be created to lead the next generation of both

renewable technologies and storage solutions.

For the majority of the obligations, the main Energy Union dimension(s) are clear. There are a few

exceptions where no clear match to one specific dimension can be identified. These are obligations on

nuclear energy safety and obligations that report on a large variety of topics (e.g. regulations on energy

statistics). Therefore, the topics “Nuclear Energy” and “Other” were added to be able to categorise all the

obligations.


14

Subsequently, the legal basis for the obligations (Directives, Regulations etc.) were studied to assess

whether all relevant obligations had been identified in the Commission’s screening exercise. This included

reading through the sectoral legislation to check if all relevant obligations were included, if the identified

obligations were correct (e.g. in terms of frequency or description), with the right specifications (e.g. in

terms of article number) and checking if any amendments were made that impacted the obligations. Any

modifications to the list of obligations initially identified by the Commission have been sent to the

Commission for approval.

At the end of the exercise, 90 obligations were identified in 31 pieces of legislation, with the division

between the Energy Union topics as shown in Figure 3-1 below. “Research, innovation and competitiveness”

was not identified as the main topic for any of the obligations, although the topic is relevant to some of the

obligations. Section 3.2.6 provides a complete mapping of the (Energy Union) topics.

Figure 3-1: The division of the obligations by Energy Union topic

The next step of the desk review was to collect and process the publicly available data for the

planning/reporting obligations within the scope of this study. The data was collected from the sectoral

legislation of the respective obligation, impact assessments and evaluations with respect to the legislation,

and the actual plans/reports that are delivered to fulfil the obligation. The list of reviewed sources can be

found in Annex B.

Data analysis 3.2

The framework for the desk study is presented in Table 3-1. The available documents for the respective

obligations have been analysed to populate the variables. The information provides a basis for the

evaluation and impact assessment (e.g. on obligations per topic, coherence of the timing of the obligations

or on identification of the main parties concerned). This chapter describes the literature analysis and

relevant outcomes for the majority of fields. Our analysis of the qualitative indicators and expected costs

and benefits provided a limited amount of relevant information for the purpose of this study. The analysis

of the quantitative indicators however gave insight into overlapping reporting obligations. The information

was integrated in the evaluation and impact assessment chapters.


15

Table 3-1: The different fields that were populated with information from the different documents Field Short description Purpose Topic All legislations were initially

categorised into the following topics: Decarbonising the economy; Energy security, solidarity and trust; Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand; A fully-integrated European energy market; Nuclear Energy; Research, Innovation and Competitiveness and Other. The first five are the Energy Union dimensions

To address the Commission’s request to review the obligations in light of the Energy Union dimensions, information for the Impact Assessment

Title of the piece of legislation Type of legislation (e.g. Directive or Council regulation) and legislation number

Basic information for analysis

Name/description of the piece of legislation

The name and/or a short description of the content of the legislation

Article number The article number of the directive where the obligation can be found

Description of the obligation The name of the obligation or a short description of what is included in the report/plan

Type of obligation The obligations can be categorised into the following types: planning, reporting, evaluation and statistics

To clearly distinguish planning from reporting obligations, as well as one-off or irregular evaluation obligations that are part of the scope of this study. The category Statistics is needed to assess potential overlaps with reporting to Eurostat

Frequency The frequency of an obligation (e.g. weekly, every two years)

To assess the potential of streamlining

Template available (yes/no) The availability of a clear format to obtain coherent data

Information for the problem definition of the Impact Assessment

Responsible entity The entity creating the report/plan To distinguish between MS and Commission obligations, as well as other entities

Recipient The entity receiving the report/plan To assess the potential of streamlining and the links between MS and Commission obligations (identify where the Commission’s obligation flows directly from a MS obligation)

Expiry date The date at which the obligation will expire

Information for the problem definition of the Impact Assessment

Link with related fields Possible links between the obligation and the fields of climate and/or transport

To answer the evaluation question on coherence across different areas of EU climate and energy policies, in particular EU climate and transport legislation

Intervention logic (of the planning/reporting/evaluation obligation)

Objective of the obligation – related to planning / reporting

To identify the purpose of the planning / reporting aspect of the obligation and how this relates to its overall objective / intervention logic, to evaluate the effectiveness of the obligations.

Quantitative indicators reported on

Quantitative indicators that are to be included in the report/plan

To identify potential for streamlining, to evaluate the coherence between quantitative indicators reported on by the MS, including coherence with Eurostat reporting

Qualitative indicators reported on

Qualitative indicators that are to be included in the report/plan


16

Field Short description Purpose (Expected) costs The additional costs that are expected

from compliance with the obligation (e.g. administrative burden)

To evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the obligations

(Expected) benefits The additional benefits that are expected from compliance with the obligation (e.g. increased safety, increased transparency)

Findings on obligations derived from evaluation studies

Additional information on the obligation gathered from available evaluation studies

To build upon existing evaluation studies’ findings and recommendations on efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value Recommendations on obligations

derived from evaluation studies Recommendations on the obligation gathered from available evaluation studies

Contribution towards the Energy Union Dimensions

To assess to which Energy Union Dimensions each obligation contributes. This can be more than one dimension.

To assess the relevance of the obligations

Type of obligation 3.2.1

Many different obligations were identified. Not all of these obligations can be readily compared to each

other because of the different purposes they serve. To be able to properly assess the different obligations,

they have been grouped into the following four types:

• Planning: Obligations that require the delivery of a forward-looking plan;

• Reporting: Obligations that require the delivery of a backward-looking report with information on

the subject of the obligation, for example to measure progress according to the planned

objectives;

• Evaluation: Obligations to evaluate the implementation or effectiveness of a piece of legislation

with the aim to identify improvements or revisions to the legislation itself.23 Could be considered

a type of reporting obligation;

• Statistics: Obligations that require statistical data to be sent to Eurostat24, with the ultimate

purpose being a combination of information, transparency and policy monitoring and review.

Could be considered a type of reporting obligation.

Table 3-2 provides an overview of the data sources for each piece of legislation and the number and type of

obligations found for each. The number of obligations per piece of legislation range from 1 to 8. This

classification reveals that the majority concern ‘Reporting’ obligations. These are therefore the main focus

of identifying streamlining options. There are 15 ‘Planning’ obligations identified. These are relevant for

possible integration into the National Energy and Climate Plans (presented with the 2015 State of the

Energy Union communication25, see Part B: Impact Assessment). The ‘Statistics’ obligations are compared

with the other obligations to evaluate coherence between reporting to and from the Commission and

Eurostat, respectively (see section 3.2.8). A number of ‘Evaluation’ obligations have also been identified.

23 This does not include obligations that only investigate the extent to which an obligation has been put in practice, transposed into national law or has been effective in reaching its targets without any clear objective to evaluate and potentially modify the legislation as such. These are considered reporting obligations (progress reports). 24 The statistics obligations stem from Regulation 1099/2008 on energy statistics, Directive 2008/92/EC on a transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users, Directive 2009/119/EC on the obligation of maintaining oil stocks, and Regulation 691/2011 on European environmental accounts 25 COM(2015) 572 final Annex 2 – Guidance to Member States on National Energy and Climate Plans as part of the Energy Union Governance


17

Table 3-2: Overview of the data sources for each piece of legislation and the number and type of obligations therein Legal bases Analysed obligations

Legal basis Description Planning

Reporting

Evaluation

Statistics

Total

A fully-integrated European energy market

Directive 94/22/EC Conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons 0 2 0 0 2

Directive 2005/89/EC Measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment 1 1 0 0 2

Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 Establishing the Connecting Europe Facility 0 1 1 0 2 Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 Guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure 0 1 0 0 1

Decision 994/2012/EU

Information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third countries in the field of energy

0 1 0 0 1

Regulation No 256/2014 Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union 0 2 0 0 2

Regulation (EC) 713/2009 Establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators 0 2 1 0 3

Directive 2008/92/EC Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users 0 2 0 2 4

Directive 2009/72/EC Common rules for the internal market in electricity 1 3 0 0 4 Directive 2009/73/EC Common rules for the internal market in natural gas 1 3 0 0 4

Regulation No 663/2009, as amended by regulation 1233/2010

Establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy

0 1 0 0 1

Regulation 714/2009 Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity 2 0 0 0 2

Regulation 715/2009 Conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks 2 0 0 0 2

Council Decision 1999/280 (and its implementing acts provided in Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014)

"REMIT" Council Decision of 22 April 1999 regarding a Community procedure for information and consultation on crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of petroleum products

0 4 0 0 4

Regulation No 1227/2011 Wholesale energy market integrity and transparency 0 1 0 0 1 Decarbonising the economy

Directive 2009/28/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 Renewable Energy Directive 1 4 1 0 6

Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand Directive 2010/30/EU Energy Labelling Directive 0 2 0 0 2 Directive 2010/31/EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 1 4 0 0 5 Directive 2012/27/EU Energy Efficiency Directive 2 4 2 0 8

Energy security, solidarity and trust

Directive 2009/119/EC

Directive imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products

0 1 0 4 5

Directive 2013/30/EU Offshore Directive - The safety of offshore oil and gas operations 0 2 1 0 3

Regulation 994/2010 Concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply 2 1 0 0 3

Regulation 2964/95/EC Regulation introducing registration for crude oil imports and deliveries in the Community 0 2 0 0 2

Nuclear Energy Council Decision 2008/114/Euratom Statutes for the Euratom treaty 0 1 0 0 1

Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom

Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel 0 3 0 0 3

Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom, as amended by Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom Nuclear safety of nuclear installations

0 4 0 0 4

Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 0 4 0 0 4

Council Regulation 1368/2013 & Council Regulation 1369/2013

Union support for the nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania

1 1 0 0 2

Euratom Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community 1 0 0 0 1 Other

REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2008 Regulation on Energy Statistics 0 1 0 4 5 Regulation (EU) 691/2011 On European environmental economic accounts 0 0 0 1 1 Total 15 58 6 11 90


18

Responsible entity and recipient 3.2.2

The responsible entities and recipients have been identified for each obligation, to distinguish between MS

and Commission obligations as well as other entities, and to gain insight into the potential for streamlining

and to identify the links between MS and Commission obligations (identify where the Commission’s

obligation flows directly from a MS obligation). The main focus for this study lies on the obligations for

Member States and the Commission. However, for the purpose of identifying streamlining potential, a few

obligations by other entities in the Energy acquis were included as well. These are obligations performed by

the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (four obligations), ENTSO-E or ENTSOG (one

obligation each) and the TSOs (four obligations).

The recipients of the obligations are listed in Table 3-3, with a breakdown in type of obligations in

Table 3-4. It should be noted that the obligations can have multiple recipients which results in the total

number of recipients being greater than the total number of obligations. Most of the Commission’s reports

are received by both the Council and the Parliament.

Table 3-3 Responsible entity and recipient of obligation (note that obligations can have multiple recipients) ALL OBLIGATIONS

Responsible entity

Recipient MS EC ACER ENTSO-E/ENTSOG TSOs Total Total 46 34 4 2 4 90 MS 1 2 1 2 6 EC 46 1 2 1 50 Council 25 1 26 EP 25 1 26 ENTSO-E/ENTSOG 2 2 The public 3 7 1 11 EESC 6 1 7 Committee of regions 1 1 2 Advisory committee 2 2 Court of auditors 1 1 ACER (formerly ERGEG) 1 1 Regional groups 1 1

Table 3-4 Responsible entity and recipient of obligation, breakdown in type of obligations (note that obligations can have multiple recipients)

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS REPORTING OBLIGATIONS EVALUATION STATISTICS

Responsible entity Responsible entity Responsible

entity Responsible

entity Recipient MS EC ENTSO-E /

ENTSOG TSOs Total MS EC ACER Total EC MS EC

Total 6 3 2 4 15 30 24 4 58 6 10 1 MS 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 EC 6 1 7 30 1 2 33 10 Council 1 1 18 1 19 6 EP 1 1 18 1 19 6 ENTSO-E/ENTSOG 2 2 The public 1 1 3 5 1 9 1 EESC 5 1 6 1 ACER (formerly ERGEG)

1 1

Committee of regions

1 1 1

Advisory committee

2 2

Court of auditors 1 1 Regional groups 1 1


19

When looking at the division among recipients, the well-known reporting lines are clearly visible:

• Member State to the Commission (46 obligations);

• Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (25 obligations).

Member States have 14 reporting obligations and two planning obligations (the NEEAP and NREAP) that are

directly linked to the Commission’s obligations.26 The Commission receives the reports and plan from the

MSs and compiles and summarises the information from these reports and plan in its own reports. There are

no discrepancies in timing nor frequency between the obligations that are directly linked between MS and

Commission. There is only a slight difference between the obligations for the MSs and the Commission in the

Energy Efficiency Directive. Whereas the MSs have both a reporting (progress report) and planning (the

NEEAP) obligation, the Commission integrates these two into a single report.

Other reporting lines which are apparent are:

• Commission to Member State (two obligations: one planning obligation on investment intentions

under the Directive on measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure

investments (2005/89/EC) and one obligation concerning monthly reporting on the oil supply

situation and on the conditions under which oil imports have taken place as required by Regulation

2964/95/EC) and Member State to Member State (one obligation, also under Regulation

2964/95/EC);

• Member State to Advisory Committee (two obligations): This concerns reporting obligations with

respect to radioactive shipments as required by Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom. This Advisory

Committee is specifically set-for the execution of this Directive;

• ACER to various recipients stemming from regulations on trans-European energy infrastructure

(347/2013), wholesale energy market integrity and transparency (1227/2011) and a separate

regulation for establishing ACER (713/2009);

• TSOs to ENTSO-E and ENTSOG (Regulation 714/2009 and 715/2009; Directive 2009/72/EC and

2009/73/EC);

• ENTSO-E and ENTSOG to ACER and the Commission (Regulation 714/2009 and 715/2009).

Mapping of reporting flows: from TSOs to European Commission

Figure 3-2 illustrates the reporting flows between different entities (and the interlinkages between

different obligations) in the context of Regulations 714/2009 and 715/2009 on conditions for network access

and Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity

and gas.

26 These obligations are part of the following pieces of legislation: Directive 2009/28/EC; Directive 2010/30/EU; Directive 2010/31/EU; Directive 2012/27/EU; Directive 2013/30/EU; Directive 94/22/EC; REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2008; Council Decision 2008/114/Euratom; Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom; Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom, as amended by Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom; Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom; Council Regulation 1368/2013 & Council Regulation 1369/2013; Directive 2005/89/EC; Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013; Regulation (EU) No 347/2013; Decision 994/2012/EU; Regulation No 256/2014; Regulation (EC) 713/2009; Directive 2009/119/EC; Regulation 2964/95/EC; Regulation 994/2010; Directive 2008/92/EC; Directive 2009/72/EC; Directive 2009/73/EC; Regulation No 663/2009, as amended by regulation 1233/2010; Regulation 714/2009; Regulation 715/2009; Council Decision 1999/280 (and its implementing acts provided in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014); Regulation No 1227/2011; Regulation (EU) 691/2011.


20

Figure 3-2: Reporting flows concerning the internal electricity and gas markets

Frequency 3.2.3

The obligations that have been studied for this project have to be delivered at different intervals. An

overview of the number of obligations per frequency and type is displayed in Table 3-5. From the point of

view of streamlining obligations, the large variety of frequencies within the reporting obligations could be

considered an opportunity as well as a challenge. On the one hand, it signals a potential opportunity to

increase efficiency by aligning reporting intervals and combining reports. On the other hand, it may also

lead to additional complexity when trying to combine reports.

Table 3-5 Frequency of delivering obligations, split per type of obligation Frequency per type of obligation Type of obligation

Frequency Planning Reporting Evaluation Statistics Total Weekly 0 2 0 0 2 Monthly 0 4 0 5 9

Twice per year 1 0 0 0 1 Annual 3 21 0 4 28

Every 2 years 6 10 0 0 16 Every 3 years 2 7 1 0 10 Every 4 years 0 2 1 0 3 Every 5 years 1 4 0 0 5 Every 6 years 0 3 0 0 3

Every 10 years 0 2 0 0 2 Once 1 0 4 0 5 Other 1 3 0 2 6 Total 15 58 6 11 90

A wide range of frequencies for planning and reporting are apparent, ranging from weekly to once every 10

years. The most commonly applied frequencies are annual and every two years.27 Evaluations of legislation

are typically delivered only once.

For six obligations the reporting frequency has been categorised as ‘other’. This concerns obligations where

the frequency is not specified (or specified as ‘periodically’), and obligations with varying intervals. These

are:

27 One planning obligation is included which is delivered only once. This is the obligation to submit a National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP). It is expected that this obligation will recur, but under a new legal basis.


21

• The Commission’s reporting obligation under article 8(2) of Directive 94/22/EC on the conditions

for granting and using authorisations for the prospecting, exploration and production of

hydrocarbons is defined as ‘periodically’ without further specification of the frequency;

• Two obligations for Member States to provide statistics under Directive 2008/92/EC on

transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users. These obligations involve

statistics that are to be reported at different frequencies (some every year, some every 2 years);

• The Commission’s obligation to make relevant information available to the public on the

transparency platform, as required under Directive 2009/28/EC on renewable energy. This

obligation involves processing information received at different intervals from Member States.

• One Commission planning obligation to the public, to periodically publish illustrative programmes

indicating nuclear energy production targets and all the types of investment required to achieve

them.

• One Member State obligation to the Commission under Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom (on

responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste), to periodically report on

National programmes and significant changes therein.

Figure 3-3 below presents an overview of how the reporting obligations per topic are spread over the

different frequencies.

Figure 3-3: The reporting frequency of each obligation per topic

The spread per topic reveals the nature of the different Energy Union Dimensions. For instance, the fully-

integrated energy market reports are delivered frequently, while the reports for nuclear energy often have

much longer intervals. This corresponds to the longer planning horizon and slower rate of change in the

nuclear sector. But also among Energy Union dimensions with more comparable planning horizons, like

energy efficiency and decarbonising the economy, large differences exist in reporting frequency (from

annual up to once every 5 years).

Furthermore, the relatively frequent reporting on the energy security dimension is noteworthy, which is

probably (at least partly) driven by the rapid impact of geopolitical developments on the supply of fossil

fuels. It can also be observed that the reporting frequencies within the topics sometimes differ

significantly. Especially the energy efficiency reports demonstrate a large variety in intervals with reports


22

delivered every 1, 3, 4 and 5 years. A comparable spread can be observed within the integrated energy

market dimension and the nuclear energy category.

Templates 3.2.4

Templates can simplify data handling for the Commission and thus reduce their administrative burden. The

big advantage for the Commission is that the same data is delivered from all the Member States and in the

same format, therefore it is easily comparable. For the Member States, templates can be useful because

they clearly present what should be reported, so unnecessary reporting can be avoided. Templates are

provided for several of the planning and reporting obligations. The use of these templates can be mandatory

or voluntary. Of the 90 obligations that are assessed in the present study, 24 obligations make use of

templates (see Table 3-6). They are mostly provided by the Commission to be used by Member States, but

also one Commission report and one Eurostat report make use of a template. Some pieces of legislation do

not provide a template, but a general framework for reporting, for example for the annual reports of the

Energy Efficiency Directive. It presents the minimum information that should be provided in the report.

General frameworks are not considered as templates in this study.

Table 3-6: A list of the obligations that make use of a template Legislation Name / description of legislation Art. Description of obligation Entity Decarbonising the economy Directive 2009/28/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513

Renewable Energy Directive 22 Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources

MS

4, Annex VI

National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP)

MS

Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand Directive 2012/27/EU Energy Efficiency Directive 3, 24,

Annex XIV National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP)

MS

4 Long-term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock

MS

Nuclear Energy Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom

Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel

20(1) Report on implementation of the directive

MS

Energy security, solidarity and trust Directive 2009/119/EC Directive imposing an obligation

on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products

6 Annual summary copy of the stock register

MS

12 Monthly statistical summaries of emergency stocks

MS

13 Monthly statistical summaries of specific stocks

MS

14 Monthly statistical summaries of commercial stocks

MS

Regulation 2964/95/EC Regulation introducing registration for crude oil imports and deliveries in the Community

2, 7 Report at regular intervals on the conditions under which the oil imports or deliveries have taken place

MS

8 COM to analyse information and communicate it to MS

EC

Regulation 994/2010 Concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply

5 Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans

MS

9 Risk assessment MS A fully-integrated European energy market Directive 2008/92/EC Community procedure to improve

the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users

Annex I Annex I: Gas prices reports MS Annex II Annex II: Electricity prices

report MS

Council Decision 1999/280 (and its implementing acts provided in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014)

"REMIT" Council Decision of 22 April 1999 regarding a Community procedure for information and consultation on crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of

3(1) Crude oil supply cost cif, and the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of all taxes in force

MS


23

Legislation Name / description of legislation Art. Description of obligation Entity petroleum products 3(2) Consumer prices of petroleum

products and net of duties and taxes in force

MS

Directive 2005/89/EC Measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment

7(1-4) Report on overall adequacy of the electricity system to supply current and projected demands for electricity

MS

Regulation No 256/2014 Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union

3 and 5 Reporting on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union

MS

Other Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008

Regulation on Energy Statistics 4(1a) Transmit national statistics (annual)

MS

4(1b) Transmit national statistics (monthly)

MS

4(1c) Transmit national statistics (short-term monthly)

MS

5(5) Yearly energy statistics EC (Eurostat)

6(4) Report on the quality of the data transmitted and any methodological changes that have been made

MS

Intervention logics 3.2.5

In order to better understand the purpose of the reporting, planning and monitoring aspects of each

instrument under the energy acquis we prepared the following high level intervention logic. It attempts to

describe the reasons why reporting and monitoring are included in energy related legislation and the typical

objectives, outputs, impacts and results of this reporting and monitoring.

Figure 3-4: General intervention logics for reporting and monitoring in energy legislation


24

The economic theory justifying the purpose of monitoring performance to ensure compliance is well known.

This stretches back to what is arguably the seminal work on compliance theory, Becker's 1968 paper 'Crime

and Punishment: An Economic Approach' which sought to determine the optimal level of resources and

types of punishment which should be used to enforce legislation, and to understand why enforcement

differs amongst different kinds of legislation. Becker observed that there is a trade-off between detection

rates and severity of sanction, as often low detection probability is matched with severe punishments28.

There have been a number of studies and papers that test the impacts of reporting and inspection activity

and the links between this and compliance. A paper by Cohen (2000) reviewed empirical research on the

effectiveness of monitoring and enforcement of environmental policy in deterring firms from violating

environmental laws,29 including “informal” monitoring and enforcement pressures, such as the role that

public information has on firm compliance. It found that studies have shown increased government

monitoring and enforcement results in a greater level of compliance and/or a reduction in pollution. It also

found that performance measures of deterrence broadly fit into two categories: actual levels of pollution

and compliance status; nevertheless, indicators can vary considerably according to the availability of data

and the type of industry. A study by the EPA in 200730 examined regulatory activity to understand specific

and general deterrence. This paper reviewed the full range of contemporary literature to measure the

specific and general deterrence effects of environmental monitoring and enforcement, and determinants of

compliance behaviour. Some of the key findings were that regulation, monitoring, and enforcement are the

main determinants of environmental behaviour and such activities generate substantial specific and general

deterrence; and there is evidence that this type of activity may generate significant emissions reductions,

even for sector/contaminant combinations where compliance is typically high. A 2008 OECD report31

examined compliance assurance internationally through a systematic comparative analysis of compliance

and enforcement instruments across eight countries, which identified good practices and trends

To summarise, the literature highlights positive links between monitoring and enforcement activity and

compliance performance, albeit based on firms being regulated by a government, rather than Member

States being ‘regulated’ by the European Commission. It shows that although internal and external business

and financial factors play a role in environmental performance one of the key determinants of performance

was government pressure, reinforcing the case for monitoring and enforcement activity.

In order to gain a better understanding of the rationale for the planning and reporting obligations, the

intervention logics of the different obligations have been analysed. This meta-evaluation involved our own

review of the information contained in the impact assessments, the legal basis (i.e. sectoral legislation)

and/ or evaluation studies for each piece of legislation. In some cases, our analysis indicates that several of

the objectives are relevant, but we applied our own judgement and policy knowledge to select the most

relevant objectives. We have found six main rationales for the planning and reporting obligations which are

defined in Table 3-7 below as the categories of intervention logics:

• Compliance;

• Progress checking;

• Public confidence;

• Knowledge sharing;

• Intelligence / Market transparency;

28 Becker, G (1968) Crime and Punishment: an Economic Approach 29 Cohen (2000) Empirical Research on the Deterrent Effect of Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement 30 US EPA (2007) State of Science White Paper - Monitoring, Enforcement and Environmental Compliance 31 OECD (2008) Environmental Compliance Assurance Systems: A cross-country analysis.


25

• Data collection for other uses.

The intervention logic categorisation reveals that more than half of the obligations contribute in some way

to monitoring compliance with the legislation. This includes various reporting obligations to check if the

requirements of the legislation have been put into practice in the Member States. Furthermore, 34% of the

obligations contribute to monitoring the progress to targets, for example with respect to the 2020 targets.

35% of the obligations include knowledge sharing as one of the reasons for the obligation to be in place, for

instance with respect to the effectiveness of measures taken in the different Member States. Additionally,

28% of the obligations contribute to providing intelligence / market transparency such as information about

energy prices. Public confidence has been identified as an intervention logic for 17% of the obligations,

including various obligations with respect to safety. Finally, 18% of the obligations are in place to collect

data for other uses. An overview of the intervention logic for each obligation can be found in Annex A.

Table 3-7: The intervention logics per type of obligation

Type of obligation

Intervention logic - objective Definition

Planning

Reporting

Evaluation

Statistics

Total

Total %

Compliance Monitoring compliance with the legislation 7 31 4 4 46 52% Progress checking Tracking progress, for example towards targets 3 22 5 0 30 34% Public confidence Informing the public to assure confidence, for example

with respect to the safety standards applied 1 13 1 0 15 17%

Knowledge sharing To share knowledge with other Member States, the Commission, or the EP, for example to learn from best practices and to align national approaches

5 24 1 1 31 35%

Intelligence / Market transparency

To report trends, developments and insights, for example with respect to energy markets

11 11 0 3 25 28%

Data collection for other uses

Collecting data for other uses, for example when used for populating the Eurostat database

0 9 0 7 16 18%

Note: Obligations can be assigned to more than one category. Therefore, the number of obligations assigned to the categories may exceed the total number of obligations in scope.

Within the types of obligations, it can be observed that the ‘Planning’ and ‘Reporting’ obligations have a

wide variety of intervention logics. For the ‘Evaluation’ obligations the main categories of intervention

logics are compliance and progress checking which is as expected since those are main inputs required for

evaluating the legal basis. The ‘Statistics’ obligations contribute mainly to intelligence / market

transparency and data collection for other uses. Four ‘Statistics’ obligations serve only to check

compliance. This regards Directive 2009/119/EC, imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain

minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products. These obligations exist to ensure that the Member

States maintain sufficient stock-levels.

Overall, 18 obligations that are reported by Member States to the Commission have been identified, that do

not have compliance or progress checking as intervention logic. Of these obligations:

- One is a planning obligation by the Commission to the public under article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, to

raise public confidence and increase the intelligence/market transparency’;

- Six are “statistics”, they are reported to Eurostat and serve to gather data for other purposes, to

increase intelligence/market transparency and/or to share knowledge;

- The other 11 obligations are reporting obligations, of which:

o Three are to share knowledge on the topic of nuclear energy;


26

o Four have knowledge sharing as only objective; two on the topic of Energy Efficiency and two

on the fully-integrated European energy market topic;

o Three have data collection for other purposes as only objective; one on the topic of Energy

security, solidarity and trust and two on the topic of a fully-integrated European energy

market;

o One concerns a fully-integrated European energy market and has knowledge sharing,

intelligence/market transparency and data collection for other purposes as objectives.

The intervention logics per topic (consisting of the Energy Union Dimensions, Nuclear Energy, and Other)

provide another angle to view the obligations from.

Figure 3-5 below displays the relative share of intervention logics per Energy Union topic32. It gives insight

into the main objectives per topic for having the obligation.

Figure 3-5: The percentage of each intervention logic per topic

A high share of obligations for progress checking and knowledge sharing can be observed within the energy

efficiency and decarbonising the economy topics. This probably results from the 20-20-20 targets33 which

require innovative, ambitious plans that could leverage the knowledge gained in other parts of the

European Union (knowledge sharing) and require clear checks on progress (progress checking). Compliance

has been found to be an important reason for obligations of almost all topics, except for ‘other’. It is the

most important for Nuclear energy, probably because safety and the prevention of misuse of special fissile

material is very important for this topic and has to be guaranteed. No obligations were categorised in the

topic of 'Research, Innovation and Competitiveness’. Although 15 obligations do have an R&I objective (see

the next section), it is not their main objective.

32 It should be noted that this presents the percentage of the total number of intervention logics that has been assigned to the obligations for each topic. As some obligations have multiple intervention logics assigned to them, this cannot be directly translated to a share of the total number of obligations, although it gives an approximation. 33 COM(2010) 2020 final – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth


27

Market transparency has been identified as an objective for 25 reporting, planning and statistical

obligations (Table 3-7), for five of the seven topics. Energy Efficiency does not include an obligation to

increase transparency.

Energy Union dimensions 3.2.6

The obligations have also been mapped against the dimensions of the Energy Union by estimating the extent

to which they contribute to the goals as defined in the Energy Union communication.34 This can be used to

assess the relevance of each obligation for these dimensions. Most obligations contribute to more than one

energy dimension. For example, the progress reported under the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)

contributes to four dimensions: Energy security, solidarity and trust; A fully-integrated European energy

market; Decarbonising the economy; and Research, Innovation and Competitiveness. The results of this

mapping against the five dimensions explained above are presented in Table 3-8 below. An overview of the

Energy Union Dimension corresponding with each obligation can be found in Annex A.

Table 3-8: The number and percentage of the total obligations that is related to each Energy Union Dimension

Total obligations

Energy Union dimension # obligations % of total # obligations

Security of supply 47 53%

The Energy Market 45 51%

Efficiency 30 34%

Decarbonisation 35 39%

R&D 15 17%

No obvious fit to any Energy Union dimension 13 16%

Note: Obligations can be assigned to more than one category. Therefore the number of obligations assigned to the categories may exceed the total number of obligations in scope.

Overall, it can be concluded that the majority of the obligations corresponds to at least one of the Energy

Union dimensions. Furthermore, the spread among the different dimensions is fairly equal with only the

R&D dimension being under-represented. The links with R&D found in the obligations regards the Energy

Efficiency Directive (2012/27), the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28), the Regulation on Energy

Statistics (1099/2008) and the Regulations for conditions for access to the network for gas and electricity

(715/2009 and 714/2009). R&D is not the main aim of these pieces of legislation, but it is mentioned and

included as an additional tool to help achieve their objectives. This apparent lack of coverage for R&D can

largely be explained by the fact that DG RTD have lead responsibility for R&D specific legislation (e.g. the

Horizon 2020 programme), including in the energy field, although DG Energy have the responsibility of

assessing and monitoring the (near market) energy related projects supported by Horizon 2020 (and its

predecessor FP7). Some obligations do not clearly relate to any of the dimensions (mainly nuclear energy

obligations). This regards thirteen obligations on the topic of Nuclear Energy and one obligation on energy

statistics (see Table 3-9).

34 COM(2015) 80 final - A framework strategy for a resilient Energy Union with a forward-looking climate change policy


28

Table 3-9: The obligations that do not show an apparent link to any of the Energy Union Dimensions Legal basis Name / description of the legal basis Art.

Nuclear Energy



16(1c) 20(1) 20(2)

Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom, as amended by Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom

Nuclear safety of nuclear installations

8e 8e

9(1) 9(2)


Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste

14(1) 14(2) 14(3)



6 6

Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 13

Other Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 Regulation on Energy Statistics 6,4

Expiry date 3.2.7

The expiry dates of the obligations were obtained to be able to assess the baseline, Policy Option 1 and

Policy Option 2 in the Impact Assessment. The baseline scenario and Policy Option 1 assume a continuation

of existing planning or reporting and monitoring post 2020. The obligations that expire by 2020 have been

identified, as these will not be prolonged post 2020 (as there is no policy change to extend them). Policy

Option 2 assumes a revision/amendment of the existing legislation post 2020 and introduces changes in

each towards streamlining of planning and reporting obligations (on an ongoing basis). A convenient

moment to implement these changes would be after evaluations are performed. The Policy Options are

explained in more detail in Chapter 8.

Table 3-10 presents the number of obligations for which an expiry date has been found. Only a few expiry

dates for the obligations are mentioned in the legislation reviewed. For these obligations, a distinction was

made between expiry dates before and after 2020. Most obligations have no expiry date specified. A

number of obligations are categorised as ‘Not specified but directive refers to 2020 targets’, this means

that the legal basis of these obligations refers to targets in the year 2020, therefore it is possible that the

obligation will expire after 2020. Two obligations have been found with an expiry date that was categorised

as “other” (Council Regulation 1368/2013 & Council Regulation 1369/2013, concerning Union support for

the nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania). The expiry date is

implied as being the date that the decommissioning programme is finalised.

Most expiry dates for obligations that were found refer to one-off evaluations, where the timing of the

evaluation is the expiry date. A few expiry dates were also found for reporting obligations (e.g. the report

reviewing the application of the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC, because this Directive refers to

targets for the year 2020). All the obligations and their identified expiry dates are presented in Table 3-11.

Table 3-10: The number of obligations per expiry date category Expiry date analysis # obligations

Before 2020 3

Past 2020 6

Not specified but directive refers to 2020 targets 15

No expiry date specified 64

Other 2

Total 90


29

Table 3-11: The expiry dates of the obligations which are specified or refer to 2020 targets Obligations with an expiry date

Topic Legal basis

Name / description of the legal basis Art. Description of obligation Expiry date

Decarbonising the economy

Directive 2009/28/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513

Renewable Energy Directive

22 Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources

31-Dec-21

4 + Annex VI

National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) 30-Jun-1035

17(7) + 23(3) Progress report 31-Dec-21

23(10) report reviewing the application of this Directive 31-Dec-21

19(5) + 24

Transparency platform + Report on typical and default values of biofuels and bio liquids emissions

Not specified but directive refers to 2020 targets

Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand

Directive 2010/31/EU

Energy Performance of Buildings

All obligations Not specified but directive refers to 2020 targets

Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand


Energy Efficiency Directive

24(10) Review on the implementation of Article 19(1)


rest of obligations 6/30/2018



Offshore Directive - The safety of offshore oil and gas operations

40 Assessment of experience in implementing the Directive 7/19/2019

Nuclear Energy



9(1) Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive

7/22/2020

Nuclear Energy



9(2) Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive

7/22/2020

Nuclear Energy



All obligations

Not explicitly defined but time-bound by the duration of the decommissioning programme


Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013

Establishing the Connecting Europe Facility

22 Report on progress and investments made in projects of common interest





27

Ex post evaluation examining the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEF and its impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as its contribution to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the scale and results of support used with a view to attaining climate-change objective

12/31/2021

35 Although this obligation is expired it has been included in our study, because it continues to be relevant in light of the EU Renewable Energy targets.


30

Quantitative indicator analysis, including overlaps with Eurostat indicators 3.2.8

The reporting and planning obligations contained in the legislation we reviewed require the reporting of a

number of quantitative and qualitative indicators. The large number of obligations under different pieces of

legislation create a concern that some indicators have to be reported on more than once. Additionally, next

to DG Energy, Eurostat also requires the reporting of quantitative indicators by Member States. Eurostat

collects data in a structured way via a special system called eDamis, and uses special templates in excel

(which they call questionnaires). In general, Eurostat does not collect data themselves or get forwarded any

data from EC or anyone else (an exception to this are the NEEAPs, from which Eurostat does take some of

the data.) This increases the possibility that Member states have to report twice on the same quantitative

indicators, once to DG Energy and once to Eurostat. To identify these potential inefficiencies that could

cause an increase in administrative burden, this section contains two analyses:

1. An analysis of the coherence of the quantitative indicators reported on by the Member States. Through

this analysis it is assessed whether Member States have to report on the same indicators through

different reports and possible streamlining options can be identified;

2. An analysis of the coherence between the quantitative indicators reported on by the Member States

vis-a-vis the quantitative indicators in the Eurostat database. This analysis exposes indicators that are

reported on by Member States to both DG Energy and Eurostat. Following the analysis, conclusions on

overlaps, and hence possible streamlining options are presented.

Selecting the indicators

The following steps have been taken to select the relevant indicators for the analysis:

1. Select the obligations of the type “Reporting” or “Evaluation”;

a. “Planning” obligations are excluded because they do no report on indicators but create

plans on the desired future state of certain indicators;

b. “Statistics” obligations are excluded as these report statistics to Eurostat specifically. The

indicators reported to Eurostat will be compared to the other selected indicators in

analysis 2 of this section.

2. Select the obligations for the Member States;

a. EC and ACER obligations are excluded because they build on what the Member States and

National Regulatory Authorities report to them.

3. Identify all quantitative indicators. These are the indicators that are used in the reporting

obligations. Examples are: “the quantity in barrels for each type of crude oil”, “Primary energy

consumption” or “the share of biofuels made from wastes, residues, non-food cellulosic material,

and ligno-cellulosic material”. The quantitative indicators were gathered from the relevant

articles and annexes in the legislation, as well as the reporting itself;

4. Categorise the indicators into:

a. Energy indicators: These are indicators that report on dimensions that can be aggregated

to describe the whole energy system, but that can also be segregated to zoom into

specific sections. These include indicators on energy volumes, capacities, prices,

investment levels and others;

b. General indicators: These are indicators that can also be aggregated or segregated, but

that do not report on the energy system as such. This includes indicators on GDP,

population and others; and

c. Legislation specific: These indicators are relevant in the context of a specific piece of

legislation but do not have any meaning beyond this. This includes indicators on the

number of inspections, number of incidents or number of projects.


31

The categorisation from the legislation to indicators is presented in Figure 3-6. The exercise resulted in a

set of 114 quantitative indicators that Member States report on, which are divided among the three

categories described above.

Figure 3-6: The categorisation of the legislation, obligations, indicators and matches with Eurostat

For the purpose of this study, the main category of interest is ‘Energy Indicators’. This category may

contain overlapping or incoherent indicators on the same topic.

These are assessed in the analyses below (analysis 1). The category ‘General Indicators’ is of less interest as

these indicators are often readily available and merely included to provide some context on the energy

indicators. The category ‘Legislation specific’ is also of less interest because these indicators are specific to

the respective piece of legislation and are therefore unlikely to overlap with other indicators. The ‘Energy

Indicators’ are compared to the indicators reported in the Eurostat database in order to identify overlaps.

The results are explained below in Analysis 2: Coherence with Eurostat.

Analysis 1: Coherence between quantitative indicators reported on by the Member States (excluding

Eurostat)

Several additional characteristics have been categorised for the energy indicators:

• Supply chain position: The part of the energy supply chain that is reported on. Starting at ‘Raw

materials’ and continuing with ‘Generation’, ‘Transmission’, ‘Storage’, ‘Consumption’ and finally

‘Emissions and Waste’;

• Type of measurement: Capacity, Volume, Price, Investment, and Other;

• Energy carrier: Coal, Oil, Gas, Uranium, Biomass, Renewables, Electricity, Fuel, Heat and a

category of Overall for measures that report on the energy system as a whole.

When looking at the supply chain position and type of measurement of the quantitative indicators reported

on by Member States the following picture emerges:

Table 3-12: The number of indicators on each type of measurement for each position in the supply chain Energy indicators categorisation Type of measurement Supply chain position Capacity Volume Price Investment Other Total Raw materials 0 5 2 0 3 10

Generation 8 17 0 0 1 26 Transmission 2 0 0 4 1 7 Storage 1 0 0 0 0 1 Consumption 2 35 5 0 0 42 Emissions, waste 0 2 0 0 0 2

Total 13 59 7 4 5 88


32

The following can be observed:

• The largest number of indicators (35) report on consumption volume, e.g. consumption of gas,

electricity demand;

• A large number of indicators report on generation volume (17), e.g. electricity supply, Nuclear

power share of total electricity production in the EU;

• Investment figures are only reported for transmission (mainly for the Projects of Common

Interest).

The largest number of indicators report on the volume of consumption. These indicators stem from five

pieces of legislation and three different topics (see Table 3-13). Spreading the reporting of the consumption

volume data across different legislations can create to some extent incoherence and inefficiencies. The

consumption volume is reported for a spread of 5 different categories of energy carriers; gas, renewables,

electricity, heat and overall energy. To identify possible overlap, the energy carriers for which consumption

volume is reported are identified per legislation. Table 3-14 shows that four energy carriers are reported on

for only one legislation, so no overlap can be identified there. Electricity is reported on to three

legislations, Directive 2005/89, Directive 2009/28/EU, and Directive 2009/72. Most indicators are reported

for Directive 2009/72. The two indicators for the RED 2009/28 require input on shares and volumes of

electricity from renewables and the indicator for Directive 2005/89 requires the expected future

supply/demand balance. Since this is not required by Directive 2009/72, no streamlining potential is

identified.

Table 3-13: Number of times that Member states report on energy consumption volume per piece of legislation

Legislation Topic Description of legislation

MS reporting on energy

consumption volume

Directive 2005/89/EC A fully-integrated European energy market

concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment

1


Decarbonising the economy Renewable Energy Directive 3


Common rules for the internal market in electricity 12


Common rules for the internal market in natural gas 12

Directive 2012/27/EU Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand

Energy Efficiency Directive 7

Total 35

Table 3-14: Number of times that Member States report on energy consumption volume of different energy carriers per piece of legislation

Energy carriers

Legislation Gas Renewables Electricity Heat Overall Total

Directive 2005/89/EC 0 0 1 0 0 1 Directive 2009/28/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513

0 1 2 0 0 3

Directive 2009/72/EC 0 0 12 0 0 12 Directive 2009/73/EC 12 0 0 0 0 12 Directive 2012/27/EU 0 0 0 1 6 7 Total 12 1 15 1 6 35


33

Analysis 2: Coherence and overlaps with Eurostat

When comparing the energy indicators stemming from the different obligations with the indicators in the

Eurostat database, we found that of the 81 identified indicators that are reported on by Member States to

DG ENER, 27 indicators show a complete match with data from Eurostat (Figure 3-6). For most of the data,

this means that this information has to be reported more than once, to Eurostat and to DG Energy.

Furthermore, four indicators show a partial match with Eurostat, which means that not the whole indicator,

but just a part of it, can be matched, e.g. for the indicator “the total volume of installed production (=

electricity + processing of fuels, incl. biofuels)”, only the data on electrical capacity and biofuel

production capacity is found, so the capacity of processing fuels is still missing. Finally 50 indicators show

no match with Eurostat indicators in their database.

Four pieces of legislation that contain obligations with overlapping indicators can be identified and

categorised into three different topics (Table 3-15). This shows that the overlapping indicators are not

found in only one topic or legislation, but rather spread over different topics. The topics where no overlap

was found are Research, Innovation and Competitiveness (as there are no obligations found under this

topic), nuclear energy and other. Most overlap is found for indicators of Directive 2009/72/EC (Common

rules for the internal market in electricity), Directive 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in

natural gas) and Directive 2012/27/EU (Energy Efficiency Directive). A complete overview of the

overlapping indicators and the obligations they are reported for is presented in Table 3-16.

The administrative burden is generally positively related to the number of indicators that is reported on.

Therefore, it is assumed that by removing these identified overlapping indicators (and thus decreasing the

total number), the administrative burden will also decrease. However, the magnitude of this decrease is

dependent on the indicator.

Table 3-15: A list of the pieces of legislation with indicators that show a complete match with Eurostat indicators # of indicators Legislation Topic Short description of legislation MS Directive 2009/28/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513

Decarbonising the economy Renewable Energy Directive 2


Common rules for the internal market in electricity 9


Common rules for the internal market in natural gas 8

Directive 2012/27/EU Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand Energy Efficiency Directive 8

Total 27


34

Table 3-16: An overview of the identified overlapping indicators and the obligations they are reported for. Legal basis Description of obligation Art. Indicator

Directive 2009/28/EC as amended by Directive (EU)

2015/1513

Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources 22

Actual consumption of energy from renewable sources in the preceding 2 years Sectoral and overall shares of renewable sources


1. National Regulatory Authority annual report

37(1) ( e )

wholesale electricity price volumes of electricity sold on market domestic electricity consumption electricity import electricity export electricity supply/demand balance (deficit)

2. Monitoring of security of supply by NRA 4

energy supply (electricity) S-D balance of electricity energy (electricity) demand


1. National Regulatory Authority annual report

41(1) e

wholesale gas prices % of natural gas in primary national energy consumption and final energy consumption net consumption of gas Gas storage sites capacities quantity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports

2. Monitoring of security of gas supply by NRA 5

energy (gas) supply S-D balance of gas energy (gas) demand


Progress report 7, 24, Annex

XIV

final energy consumption by sector (industry, transport, households, services total final energy consumption Primary energy consumption fuel input for thermal power generation electricity generation from combined heat and power electricity generation from thermal power generation heat generation from thermal power generation

statistics on national electricity and heat production from high and low efficiency cogeneration

24 (6) District heating production

Regulation 2964/95/EC

Report at regular intervals on the conditions under which the oil imports or deliveries have taken place

2, 7 Quantity in barrels for each type of crude oil

Links with related fields 3.2.9

The links between the obligations under the different topics with the related fields of transport and climate

have been assessed. As can be seen in the Table below, some obligations show no link, while others show a

link with one or both of the fields. The obligations that show a link with one or both fields could potentially

have an overlap with obligations from these sectors.

Table 3-17: The links of the obligations with the related fields of transport and climate

Link with Transport or

Climate sectors Type of obligation

Link



Energy efficiency

contributing to moderation of

demand


Research, Innovation

and Competitive-

ness Nuclear energy Other Total

Transport 7 7 0 0 0 3 0 17 Climate 0 5 10 0 0 0 1 16 Transport and Climate 0 2 5 6 0 0 5 18 No link 6 21 0 0 0 12 0 38 Total 13 35 15 6 0 15 6 90


35

More than half of the obligations show a link with the transport field and/or the climate field. The amount

of links with the transport field is about the same as the amount of links with the climate field. Most links

are found in the obligations from the energy efficiency and decarbonisation topics, where all obligations

have an overlap with one or both of the sectors. For the energy security and integrated energy market

topics it is only about half of the obligations. Most obligations regarding nuclear energy show no link.

Findings and recommendations from existing evaluations 3.3

Most evaluations and impact assessments did not have specific findings or recommendations on reporting or

planning. The amount of information from these studies that is useful for this study is therefore limited. As

a result, this study relies more on data obtained from the sectoral legislations, reports, public consultation,

the survey and interviews. However, some studies did address the reporting and planning obligations. This

section summarises the findings and recommendations from existing evaluations on planning and reporting

obligations within the scope of this study.

The divergence of reporting by Member States is noted by several previous evaluations. This divergence is

apparent in reporting for which there is only informal guidance from the Commission. The structure,

standard and nature of the assessments can differ considerably between Member States. For example, the

evaluation of Regulation 994/2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply found that the

coordination of reporting between Member States was poor.36 Currently, guidelines, templates or even

electronic reporting systems are implemented for more and more obligations, increasing the coordination

between the reports (e.g. the main reason for implementing Directive 256/2014 was to introduce legally

binding templates). Though many obligations do not use templates yet, so there is still room for

improvement.

The divergence in reporting between Member States could also explain why there can be delays before

monitoring data become available at the EU level.37 Such a delay in monitoring means that the response of

the EU to deviations is likewise delayed, which increases the risk of ineffective implementation of policies.

To address such issues, a study on the EPBD has recommended that the Commission should aim to convince

Member States to use common reporting templates.38 Evidence of the benefits of a common template can

be seen by comparing the original NEEAPs, where there was no template and some questions were not

answered, and the NREAPs where there was as template and the reporting was deemed excellent. Reporting

templates could make the compilation and subsequent evaluation and comparison of national reports much

easier. If a common template is not an option, the Commission could improve the guidance given to MSs

regarding the expectations for the reported information.39 Another recommendation related to reporting

from the evaluation of the Renewable Energy Directive is that MS reports should undergo a quality check to

ensure that progress reports are submitted with all sections completed.

For four reports (nearly zero-energy buildings, cost-optimality, NEEAP and NREAP), which all contain

building sector related information, the evaluation study of the EPBD recommended to streamline the

36 European Commission (2014). Report on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 994/2010 and its contribution to solidarity and preparedness for gas disruptions in the EU. SWD(2014) 325. 37 Kampman, B. et al. (2015). Mid-term review of the Renewable Energy Directive: A study in the context of the REFIT programme. CE Delft. 38 Hermelink, A. et al. (2013). Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: Definition of common principles under the EPBD. Ecofys. 39 Kampman, B. et al. (2015). Mid-term review of the Renewable Energy Directive: A study in the context of the REFIT programme. CE Delft.


36

reporting schedules, which were found to differ significantly.40 The evaluation also identified that the same

data was requested in different reporting obligations. It was proposed that the reports might be merged, or

at least harmonised, to improve transparency and avoid duplication. A similar harmonisation can be seen in

the current proposal to repeal Directive 2008/92/EC (Community procedure to improve the transparency of

gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users) and cover the collection of data on natural gas

and electricity prices for the household and non-household sectors in one legal act.41

Analysis of Commission obligations vis-à-vis the Streamlining report of 2013

As part of the follow-up work to the seminar of Directors-General held on 25 January 2013, a report was

produced on screening of the internal42 and external43 reporting and planning obligations for DG Energy and

DG Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission.44 The report assessed all Commission

publications that provide information on policy implementation, irrespective of the policy

adoption/publication procedure. This means that both reporting and planning obligations were assessed.

Internal reporting obligations were outside the scope of this study. However, the review of the external

reporting obligations of DG Energy, i.e. the reporting obligations of the Commission to the Council, the

European Parliament and other stakeholders, are highly relevant. The study assessed 65 reporting

obligations of DG Energy, and proposed possible ways to simplify them. The report categorised the

obligations into three categories: to be abolished, to be merged and to be maintained.

When comparing the obligations that are the focus of this study with the obligations of the 2013

streamlining report, some obligations were identified that do not match our scope and therefore were not

taken into account (e.g. because the date of the obligation has passed, the legislation has been replaced or

because the legislation was outside the scope of this study). Table 3-18 shows the number of obligations

within the scope of this study per suggested action.

Table 3-18: The number of obligations per suggested action Recommendation # of obligations within our scope

To be abolished 3

To be merged 16

To be maintained 5

No match 41

Total 65

For the obligations within the scope of this study, we have identified 3 changes since 2013. In 2014 the

frequency of the reporting obligation in article 9 of Directive 2009/71/Euratom changed from every 3 years

to every 6 years when it was amended by Directive 2014/87/Euratom and in the same year the Regulation

617/2010 was replaced by Regulation 256/2014, though its obligations still exist under the new legislation.

Also, in 2013, the three Council regulations 549/2007, 1990/2006 and 647/2010 were merged into two

regulations (Council regulations 1368/2013 and 1369/2013).

40 Hermelink, A. et al. (2013). Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: Definition of common principles under the EPBD. Ecofys. 41 European Commission (2015). Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on European statistics on natural gas and electricity prices and repealing Directive 2008/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users. COM(2015) 496. 42 Internal reporting refers to reporting to central and horizontal services within the Commission. 43 External reporting refers to the reporting obligations of the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and other stakeholders. 44 Defaa, W., & Philip, L. (2013). Report of working group 14 - Screen internal and external reporting requirements and propose way forward. Brussels.


37

The 2013 streamlining report found five obligations that were recommended for abolition, of which three

reporting obligations fall within the scope of this study. They are presented in Table 3-19, together with the

motivation for their abolition. The first reporting obligation is not relevant anymore, because it was issued

once in 1994 and has not been requested since. The content of the second reporting obligation is already

covered by other reporting obligations, and thus has no added value. The motivation for abolishing the third

reporting obligation is also that it was issued once and is not relevant anymore. However, these obligations

have not been abolished yet and therefore are still within the scope of the current analysis.

Table 3-19: the obligations that were found to be within our scope and that were recommended to be abolished. Reports to be abolished, as recommended by the 2013 streamlining report

Legal basis Report Article Frequency Responsible entity Recommendation Motivation

Directive 94/22/EC

Report on the conditions for granting and using authorisation for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

8(2) Periodically EC To be abolished

Issued once in 1994 and never afterwards; never requested by stakeholders


Report on the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users.

8 Annually EC To be abolished Substantially covered by other reports


Report on investment intentions TSOs 7(5) Every 2

years EC To be abolished Issued once and not relevant any more

In addition to the reporting obligations that were proposed to be abolished, the 2013 streamlining report

identified 43 obligations that could be merged into 14 obligations. None of these recommended mergers

have taken place yet. After removing the obligations that are not within our scope, 16 obligations remain.

Five of these obligations are not presented here, because the obligations they were recommended to merge

with are not within the scope of this analysis. 11 obligations remain that were recommended for merger

into four reports (see Table 3-20). This regards reports with similar content and similar timing.

According to the 2013 streamlining report, merging reports has three main advantages:

1) The report offers a more complete picture;

2) Double reporting is avoided;

3) It leads to streamlining of the adoption process.

The 2013 streamlining report identified 14 obligations that should be maintained, of which 5 were found to

be within our scope. These obligations are presented in Table 3-21. These reports could not be merged with

other obligations due to different timing or because their topic is too specific.

Table 3-20: Overview of obligations within the scope of this study that are recommended to be merged Reports to be merged, as recommended by the 2013 streamlining report


Group 1


Report on safety of offshore oil and gas operations (Directive proposal)

25(3) Annual EC To be merged

To provide a more complete picture of the issues at stake, ensure that reports are not duplicated and to streamline the adoption procedure.


Report on experiences from the Directive on the safety of offshore oil and gas operations (Directive proposal)

40 Once EC To be merged

Group 2


38

Reports to be merged, as recommended by the 2013 streamlining report



Benchmarking report on Internal Energy Market: annual overall progress report on internal market for gas and every 2 years on measures for meeting public service obligations

52 Annually EC To be merged To provide a more complete picture of the issues at stake, ensure that reports are not duplicated and to streamline the adoption procedure.


Benchmarking report on Internal Energy Market: annual overall progress report on internal market for electricity and every 2 years on measures for meeting public service obligations

47 Annually EC To be merged

Regulation 994/2010

Report on security of gas supply 14 Every 2

years EC To be merged

Group 3


Progress report including report on biofuels from third countries and MS

17, 23 Every two years EC To be merged



Report on the estimated typical and default values for biofuels

Annex V Every two years EC To be merged

Group 4

Directive 2010/31

Report on the progress in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements

5.4 Every 5 years EC To be merged


Directive 2010/31

Progress report on nearly zero buildings 9.5 Every 3

years EC To be merged

Table 3-21: Obligations in the scope of the current study that could be maintained according to the 2013 streamlining report Reports to be maintained, as recommended by the 2013 streamlining report

Legal basis Report Article Frequency Responsible entity Recommendation

Regulation (EC) 713/2009

Report of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators 11 Annually ACER To be maintained

Decision no 994/2012/EU

Report on compliance of intergovernmental agreements with Union law

8 Every 3 years EC To be maintained

Directive 2009/28/EC Report on the application of the Directive 23(10) Once EC To be maintained

Council Decision 2008/114/Euratom

Yearly report of the Euratom Supply Agency 3 Annually EC To be maintained


Report on nuclear safety of nuclear installations 9 Every 6

years EC To be maintained


39

Foreseen changes in the obligations 3.4

It is important to consider any changes that are foreseen in the obligations that are being assessed, in order

to be able to apply this to the baseline scenario in the Impact Assessment. The Commission provides an annual REFIT scoreboard, which assesses the progress of each individual

initiative that contributes to the Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme. The 201445 and 201546 scoreboards proposed several relevant changes in pieces of energy legislation that are within the scope of

this study. These changes can be found in Table 3-22. This includes a revision of the Directive concerning

measures to safeguard security of gas supply aiming to ensure better EU-wide compliance with the rules, and a repeal of the Energy Labelling Directive (2010/30/EU), proposing to move the obligation under this

Directive to Regulation 765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance

relating to the marketing of products.

The Commission is also reviewing the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) and the Directive on the

Energy Performance of Buildings (2010/31/EU) in 2016, which could lead to proposals for revisions. A

revision of the Security of Electricity Supply Directive (2005/89/EC) is also planned. In February 2016, the

Commission presented a proposal for a revision of the Decision Establishing an Information Exchange

Mechanism with regard to Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) (994/2012/EU).47

Table 3-22: The proposed changes in legislation that is within the scope of this study, as obtained from the REFIT scoreboards of 2014 and 2015.

Proposed changes to the obligations Scoreboard

Legislation Description of legal basis Action scoreboard Date action

scoreboard

Revision of Directive 994/2010

Concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and repealing Regulation (EU) No 994/2010. It proposes increased involvement of the Commission, along with supervisory and monitoring powers, to ensure better EU-wide compliance with the rules.

Proposal presented on 16 February 2016

Repeal of Directive 2010/30

Energy labelling Directive

The directive is proposed to be repealed and the obligations to be replaced by similar obligations from regulation 765/2008 (setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products). The proposal for the new directive aims to update and make more effective the existing acquis on energy.

Proposed date of application: 1 January 2017

45 European Commission. (2014). Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook. Brussels 46 European Commission. (2015). Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) State of Play and Outlook "REFIT Scoreboard". Strasbourg.

47 COM(2016) 53 final


40


41

Assessment of the costs and benefits of each 4planning and reporting obligation The costs and benefits of the planning and reporting obligations have been assessed. The assessment is

based on the desk research, survey and interviews, and our own analysis. This chapter summarises the

results. More detailed results of the survey and interviews are provided in Annex E and G. The balance

between the costs and the benefits is an important part of the assessment of the efficiency of the

obligations, so this chapter could be placed under the efficiency section. However, it has been kept

separate in order to improve the flow of the report.

Cost Analysis 4.1

Estimation of the total cost of MS obligations 4.1.1

An extensive quantitative cost analysis has been undertaken to measure the costs related to Member

States’ and the Commission’s planning and reporting obligations using the Standard Cost Model. The

evidence has been collected using a survey and cross-checked in interviews. The Member State survey

module was sent to more than 800 respondents, out of which in total 110 respondents provided 247

single obligation specific responses (1-11 obligations per respondent). The cost analysis has overall good

country coverage, with an average of 7 Member States providing data on costs per specific obligation,

and hence can be considered as relatively robust. Four Member States did not provide any answers to

the survey. They represent a minority of MSs and the calculation for EU totals assume their costs to be

comparable to costs collected from other MSs.

The survey for the Member States included questions asking for estimates of the staff and other costs

associated with completing each of the planning and reporting obligations. The answers were used to

produce EU level totals by applying a standard cost model, using the average time reported per

obligation and appropriate labour costs to estimate the costs for those Member States and obligations

for which no response was received.

The results show that the costs vary greatly per obligation between Member States, as well as per

policy area. Figure 4-1 shows that the MS costs (estimated total for all 28 MSs) are estimated as close to

EUR 13 mln per year for reporting obligations and close to EUR 7 mln per year for planning obligations.

The policy areas which account for the largest share of the reporting costs are the Internal Energy

Market and Energy efficiency, with each topic accounting for about EUR 5 mln per year. Reporting

obligations related to Energy supply security and Nuclear energy each generate costs of close to EUR

1.5 mln per year. Costs of planning obligations are EUR 3.3 mln per year for Energy efficiency and EUR

2.8 mln per year for Energy supply security. Obligations related to Decarbonisation/Renewable Energy

are estimated to generate costs of about EUR 500,000 per year for reporting obligations and about EUR

200,000 per year for planning obligations.


42

Figure 4-1: Estimated total costs per year of reporting and planning obligations for all 28 MS – by topic

Source: Member States survey.

The costs also vary greatly between the obligations. For example, the costs of obligations in the energy

efficiency area range between less than EUR 1,000 and more than EUR 70,000 per year for a median

Member State.48 Concerning the internal energy market, reporting obligations result in costs for a

median Member State ranging from less than EUR 1,000 per year to EUR 50,000 per year. Reporting

obligations in the energy supply security area and nuclear energy area cost the median Member State

close to EUR 40,000 per year for each of these areas. The findings of the REFIT FC survey illustrate that

data collection, preparation to fit the reporting requirements, and filling in the form accounts for some

71% of the overall reporting costs (see Annex G, Q14). Planning obligations in the energy efficiency

legislation and energy supply security legislation generate costs for a median Member State of EUR

90,000 per year and EUR 100,000 per year, respectively.

Figure 4-2 presents the distribution of costs across cost categories (estimated total for all 28 MSs). The

annual cost of person-days (i.e. staff time) are close to EUR 3 mln for reporting obligations, and 1

million euros for planning obligations. Costs of outsourcing and subcontracting activities amount to 4

million euros per year for reporting obligations and also EUR 4 mln for planning obligations. Equipment

and software costs are substantial for reporting obligations and their estimated value at EU level is

close to EUR 6 mln per year. These costs are smaller for planning obligations (about EUR 1 mln per

year).

48 The Median Member State is the Member State incurring the median cost, defined as the cost separating the higher half of the cost values from the lower half.


43

Figure 4-2: Estimated total costs per year of reporting and planning obligations for all 28 MS – by cost category


Survey results on proportionality and justification 4.1.2

The majority of the MSs interviewed in the framework of REFIT FC view fulfilling the reporting

obligations as very burdensome administratively (see Annex E). In particular, the annual progress

reports where the MSs have to report on a lot of (statistical) details are seen as the most burdensome.

Also the Commission in REFIT FC interviews pointed out that the current system requires huge amounts

of detailed data, resulting in reports of up to hundreds of pages (see Annex E), which leads to a very

large quantity of information to be used by the Commission. For some obligations elaborated templates

are used to collect the data (see section 3.2.4), which generally work well if delivered in the same

format by all MSs.

Although the administrative costs can be high, around 63% of the REFIT FC survey respondents

(irrespective of area) are positive about the costs of the planning and reporting obligations, considering

them at least to some extent (‘somewhat’ or ‘a great extent’) 49 proportionate to the benefits.50

Across the different areas, around half of respondents gave positive answers on the proportionality of

the costs in the following policy areas: decarbonisation/renewable energy, internal energy market and

nuclear energy.

• In the areas decarbonisation/renewable energy and internal energy, market costs and benefits

are considered to be proportional to a great extent by ca. 20% and ca. 25% of respondents

respectively.

• In nuclear energy, ca. 30% consider the costs to be proportional to the benefits to only a very

little extent.

• In the case of energy efficiency and energy supply security ca. 39% and ca. ca. 33%

respectively consider that the costs are somewhat proportionate to the benefits.

• In Energy efficiency, ca. 21% consider proportionality to be very little and in energy supply

security ca. 30% consider that costs and benefits are to a great extent proportionate.

49 The multiple choice options ranged from ‘a great extent’, to ‘somewhat’, ‘very little’, ‘not at all’ or ‘no opinion’. 50 43% answered that the costs were proportionate ‘to a great extent’, and 19% ‘somewhat’.


44

Figure 4-3: MS survey results of to what extent are the administrative costs of the planning and reporting obligations proportionate to the benefits

Around 49% of current respondents (irrespective of area) consider that the costs of the planning and

reporting obligations are at least to some extent justified, considering the achieved policy changes.51

Also, across all the different areas the costs are predominantly considered somewhat justified. This is

followed by costs justified to a great extent for decarbonisation/renewable energy (ca. 27%), very little

justification in the case of energy efficiency (ca. 25%) and internal energy market (ca. 20%) and not at

all considered justified (ca. 26%) in the case of nuclear energy.

51 15% answered the costs are ‘to a great extent’ justified, 34% ‘somewhat’.


45

Figure 4-4: MS survey results of to what extent is the administrative burden of the planning and reporting obligations justified by the policy changes achieved

Qualitative assessment of costs 4.1.3

This section presents a qualitative assessment of costs, based on the findings from the desk research,

survey, interviews and analysis.

Table 4-1: Number of obligations with high, medium and low costs

Qualitative assessment of total cost MS EC / others*

High 11 7

Medium 19 17

Low 11 3

No assessment possible due to lack of data 3 6

Total 44 33 *The costs of the obligations by the European Commission, ACER, ENTSO-E, ENTSOG and TSOs lacked sufficient survey responses and are therefore based on desk research, interviews and analysis only.

Table 4-1 gives an overview of the amount of obligations that have been assessed with high, medium

and low costs. Both MSs and EC have obligations in all three categories. The EC has a relatively larger

share of obligations with high costs. A possible factor which influences this could be the administrative

burden required to compile a high amount of information from the MSs. The obligations that typically

have a lower cost are reporting obligations on statistics. Especially on conventional topics, such as gas

and electricity prices, the information that the MSs are required to report on are already gathered

systematically and impose a negligible additional administrative burden on the Member States. For

newer topics, such as the energy performance of buildings, MSs had to set up new data gathering

systems, which lead to high costs. This is also visible in the obligations under the Energy Efficiency

Directive. There are also high costs in conventional areas when the obligations require more qualitative

assessment and analysis, such as the Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans and risk assessments

under Regulation 994/2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply.


46

Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 give an overview of the qualitative assessment of the total costs and benefits

for each obligation (the first of MS obligations, second of EC and others’ obligations), based on the

median cost of MSs.52 The benefits will be discussed in detail in the next section.

Table 4-2: Qualitative assessment of total costs and benefits of each planning and reporting obligation for Member States Legal basis Name / description of the

legal basis Art. Description Qualitative

assessment of costs

Qualitative assessment of benefits


Renewable Energy Directive 4 + Annex VI

National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP)

Medium High

22 Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources

Medium High


Energy Labelling Directive 3(3) Enforcement activities and level of compliance

Medium High



9(1) Planning requirement on minimum energy performance requirements

Medium Medium

10(2) List of existing measures and instruments, including financial

Low Medium

5(2) Report all input data and assumptions used for cost-optimal calculations and their results

High High


Energy Efficiency Directive 3, 24, Annex XIV

National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP

High High

4 Long-term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock

High Medium

14(1), 24, Annex XIII

Potential of cogeneration and district heating and cooling

High Low

7, 24, Annex XIV

Progress report Medium High

24(6) Statistics on national electricity and heat production from high and low efficiency cogeneration

Low Low



6 1.Annual summary copy of the stock register

Medium Medium

9(4), 9(5) 9(4): Notice specifying the level of specific stocks, or 9(5): annual report analysing the measures taken to ensure and verify the availability and physical accessibility of its emergency stocks

Low Low

12 3. Monthly statistical summaries of emergency stocks

Medium High

13 4. Monthly statistical summaries of specific stocks

High Medium

14 5. Monthly statistical summaries of commercial stocks

Medium High



25(1), Annex IX point 3

Annual report on oil and gas installations and their safety

Medium High


Regulation introducing registration for crude oil imports and deliveries in the Community

2, 7 Report at regular intervals on the conditions under which the oil imports or deliveries have taken place

High Medium

Regulation 994/2010


5 1. Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans

High High

9 2. Risk assessment High High Council Decision 1999/280

"REMIT" Council Decision of 22 April 1999 regarding a Community procedure for information and consultation on crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of

3(1) MS shall communicate to the COM: a) crude oil supply cost cif, b) the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of all taxes in force

Medium High

3(2) MS shall communicate to the COM: Medium Medium

52 Low: cost (of a median country) is below or equal to the first quartile of the distribution of costs of all obligations; High: cost is higher or equal than the last quartile; Medium: cost is between the first and last quartiles. For EC obligations: A majority of obligation costs are concentrated in a medium range. These are denoted as medium costs.


47

Legal basis Name / description of the legal basis

Art. Description Qualitative assessment of costs


petroleum products Consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes in force


Measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment

7 (1-4) Report on overall adequacy of the electricity system to supply current and projected demands for electricity

Medium High


Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users

1 Summary report on the operation of this Directive

Low Medium-low

Annex I Annex I: Gas prices reports Low Medium Annex II Annex II: Electricity prices report Low Medium


Common rules for the internal market in electricity

37(1)(e) 1. National Regulatory Authority annual report

High High

4 2. Monitoring of security of supply by NRA

Medium Medium


Common rules for the internal market in natural gas

41(1) e 1. NRA annual report High High 5 2. Monitoring of security of gas

supply by NRA Medium High

Directive 94/22/EC

Conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

9 Annual report on prospecting, exploration and production

Low High



22 Report on progress and investments made in projects of common interest

High High

Regulation No 256/2014

Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union

3 and 5 Reporting on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union

Low Medium



16(1c) Inform the Commission and the Advisory Committee on a yearly basis on shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries that, in the opinion of the competent authorities of the MS of origin, meet the exports requirements

Low Medium

20(1) Report on implementation of the directive

Low Medium



8e Self-assessment and international peer review

Medium Medium

8e Topical peer review Medium Medium 9(1) Report on progress made with the

implementation of this Directive Medium Medium



13 Notify on national programmes and any subsequent significant changes

14(1) Report on implementation Low Medium 14(3) Self-assessments and international

peer reviews Medium Medium

REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2008

Regulation on Energy Statistics

6(4) Every five years, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the data transmitted as well as on any methodological changes that have been made.

Low Medium

4.1(a) Transmit national statistics (annual)

Medium Medium

4.1(b) Transmit national statistics (monthly)

Medium Medium

4.1(c) Transmit national statistics (short-term monthly)

Medium Medium

Regulation (EU) 691/2011

European environmental economic accounts

6 Reporting of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and economy-wide material flow accounts.

Medium Medium


48

Table 4-3: Qualitative assessment of total costs and benefits of each planning and reporting obligation for EC and others


Art. Respons-ible for obligation

Description Qualitative assessment of total cost




28 Report on implementation of financial assistance to projects in the field of energy

Low Low


Renewable Energy Directive 17(7) + 23(3)

EC Progress report High High

23(10) Report reviewing the application of this Directive

24 Making relevant information public on the transparency platform

Low Medium

19(5) Report on typical and default values of biofuels and bioliquids emissions

High


Energy Labelling Directive 3(4) EC Synthetic report of MS 4 years reporting Low Medium



9.5 EC Report on progress of MS in increasing the number of nearly zero energy buildings

5,4 Report progress of the Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements



24(3) EC Evaluation of annual reports and NEEAPs

Medium High

24(5) Monitoring on implementation and on exemptions of Article 14

24(10) Review on the implementation of Article 19(1)



25(3) EC Annual report based on the information reported by MS to the EC

40 Assessment of experience in implementing the Directive



8 EC COM to analyse information and communicate it to MS

Medium High

Regulation 994/2010


14 EC Report on the security of gas supply to be included in annual reporting in Directive 2009/73/EC

Medium High

Council Decision 1999/280


4 EC Publish crude oil supply cost cif (and the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of duties and taxes charged)

Low High

Publish consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes charged (weekly Oil Bulletin)

Medium High



8 EC Report on information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between Member States and third countries in the field of Energy

Low High



7(5) EC Report on investment intentions their contribution to the objectives set out in Article 1(1)

Low Low



8 EC Report on the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users

Medium High



47 EC Overall progress report on internal market of electricity; should include MS measures for improving competition +/- recommendations

Medium Medium

22 TSOs Submit a national ten-year network development plan based on existing and forecast supply and demand, containing efficient measures in order

High Medium


49





to guarantee the adequacy of the system and the security of supply; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)



52 EC Overall progress report on internal market of gas; should include MS measures for improving competition +/- recommendations

Medium Medium

22 TSOs Submit a national ten-year network development plan based on existing and forecast supply and demand, containing efficient measures in order to guarantee the adequacy of the system and the security of supply; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

High Medium

Directive 94/22/EC


8(2) EC Report on the conditions for granting and using authorization for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons


Establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

13 EC Inputs to annual ACER activity report High Low 34 Evaluation report on ACER Medium High 11 ACER ACER Annual Report internal markets in

electricity and natural gas High High



27 EC Ex post evaluation examining the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEF and its impact

High High


Guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure

17 EC Report on the implementation of PCIs Medium Medium

Regulation 714/2009

Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity

8 ENTSO-E Adopt a non-binding Community-wide ten-year network development plan, (Community-wide network development plan), including the modelling of the integrated network, scenario development, a European generation adequacy outlook and an assessment of the resilience of the system; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

Medium High

12(1) TSOs Publish a regional investment plan; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

Medium High

Regulation 715/2009

Conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks

8 ENTSOG Adopt a non-binding Community-wide ten-year network development plan, (Community-wide network development plan), including the modelling of the integrated network, scenario development, a European generation adequacy outlook and an assessment of the resilience of the system; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

Medium High

12(1) TSOs publish a regional investment plan; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

Medium High


Wholesale energy market integrity and transparency

7(2) and (3)

ACER Market Monitoring Report and recommendations

Medium High



10 EC Cross-sector analysis of the structural evolution and perspectives of the Union’s energy system


Statutes for the Euratom treaty

3 EC Report on the activities of the Agency in the previous year and a work programme for the next year

Medium

Council Directive 2006/117/Eur


20(2) EC Summary report on the implementation of the Directive with particular attention for art. 4

High Medium


50





atom Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom


9(2) EC Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive

Medium Medium



14(2) EC Report on progress, summary report, inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel and future prospects

Medium Medium

Council Regulations 1368/2013 and 1369/2013


6 EC Annual work programme Medium High Progress report Medium High

Euratom Treaty

establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

40 EC Publish illustrative programmes indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets and all the types of investment required for their attainment.

Medium



5(5) EC (Eurostat)

The Commission (Eurostat) shall disseminate yearly energy statistics by 31 January of the second year following the reported period.

Low High

Benefit Analysis 4.2

Identified benefits of obligations 4.2.1

The obligations have several benefits, of which some are directly related to the objectives of the

obligation and its source legislation, and others are additional to the objectives.

The following benefits have been found:

• Improved compliance;

• Policy improvement in specific area;

• Longer term predictability & better investment climate;

• Better monitoring of:

o energy supply and security;

o energy markets;

o climate targets;

o renewable energy targets;

• Improved transparency of:

o energy policy;

o energy investments;

• Better data coverage;

• Better quality /more accurate data;

• More consistent and comparable data;

• Better confidence in safety measures.

Table 4-4 shows the number of MS obligations that have high benefits per type of benefit. Our

assessment indicates that the largest number of benefits are in the areas of improved transparency of

energy policy, more consistent and comparable data, better quality and accurate data, and improved

compliance. The lowest number of benefits are apparent in the areas of improved transparency of

energy investments and better monitoring of climate targets, renewable energy targets and safety

measures.


51

Table 4-4: Types of benefits and number of MS obligations with high benefits

Benefit Number of MS obligations with a high benefit

Better transparency of energy policy 45 More consistent and comparable data 41 Better quality /more accurate data 35 Better compliance 33 Better data coverage 29 Policy improvement in specific area 27 Longer term predictability & better investment climate 23 Better monitoring of energy markets 20 Better monitoring of energy supply and security 18 Better transparency of energy investments 13 Better monitoring of climate targets 12 Better monitoring of renewable energy targets 10 Better confidence in safety measures 10

Qualitative assessment of benefits 4.2.2

In order to carry out a qualitative assessment, we have assigned benefits that directly relate to the

objectives of the obligations a higher weight than other benefits. For example, the reporting obligation

under the Energy Labelling Directive (2010/30/EU) lead to better compliance with the Directive, which

is the main objective of the obligation. The overall benefits are therefore assessed as high, even though

most of the other benefits that were identified are only moderate.

Table 4-5: Number of obligations with high, medium and low benefits Qualitative assessment of total benefits MS EC / others* High 18 15 Moderate 21 12 Low 2 1 No assessment possible 3 8 Total 44 36

*The benefits of the obligations by the European Commission, ACER, ENTSO-E, ENTSOG and TSOs lacked sufficient survey responses and are therefore based on desk research, interviews and analysis only.

Overall, the objectives match with the identified benefits. The following aspects are particularly

noteworthy:

• The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) obligations have better monitoring of Renewable

Energy targets as a high benefit;

• The Oil Stocks Directive (2009/119/EC) and Regulation 994/2010 (concerning measures to

safeguard security of gas supply) obligations have compliance as a high benefit;

• Obligations in the Internal Energy Market area show high benefits related to better compliance and

better quality / more accurate data.

At the same time, some of the benefits that are directly linked to the objectives are only moderate

or low, for example:

• Obligations in the Internal Energy Market area are assessed as showing moderate to low benefits in

improving transparency of energy investments and do not always have high benefits related to

longer term predictability and a better investment climate. Benefits related to better data

coverage and more consistent and comparable data are assessed as high to moderate. Therefore,

some of these obligations are assessed as having moderate or even moderate-low benefits (see

section below on qualitative assessment of benefits);

• Obligations in the field of nuclear energy are assessed as having high benefits related to better

transparency of energy policy and the prevention of misuse of special fissile material, but the


52

benefits related to improving compliance and confidence of safety measures are high to moderate

and moderate to low on improvements of data quality and accuracy. Since compliance and

knowledge sharing are generally the main objectives of these obligations, the total benefits are

assessed as moderate (see section below on qualitative assessment of benefits).


53

PART A: EVALUATION


55

Evaluation – findings 5This chapter presents our findings grouped and summarised against the specific evaluation criteria

(including quantification of cost and cost/benefit, simplification and SME issues) and questions. Section

5.6 summarises the answers to the questions and provides the evaluation for each obligation.

Effectiveness 5.1

1) To what extent have objectives behind the various reporting and planning obligations been met?

The planning and reporting obligations associated with the energy acquis that we have reviewed have

been identified as having between one and three of the following six objectives:

• Compliance (46 obligations) ;

• Progress checking (30 obligations);

• Public confidence (15 obligations);

• Knowledge sharing (31 obligations);

• Intelligence / Market transparency (25 obligations);

• Data collection for other uses (16 obligations).

• Our review of the evaluations of the legislation did not reveal any examples where the

reporting and planning was deemed to be a negative factor in achieving the objectives of the

legislation in question.

The survey asked respondents to rate the contribution of the planning and reporting obligations to each

of these objectives, with the responses split by the six main Energy Union topics. The table below

summarises the responses to the questions that are relevant to effectiveness. Annex H gives detailed

information on the survey responses.

Table 5-1 Overview of responses relevant to effectiveness Question – Have the obligations contributed to …. ?

Considerable impact

Moderate Impacts

Positive1 Comment

improved compliance, transposition checking, monitoring of the implementation enforcement and performance of EU law

39% 32% 82% High in res and energy markets lower in nuclear

been important for policy change (e.g. development of sectoral policies).

Very important 19%

Important 37%

65% High in res and internal market, less so for EE and nuclear

longer term predictability, and hence improved investment decisions and investment climate.

11% 35% 63% Lot of no opinions, relatively flat across areas.

better monitoring and assessment of energy supply and security

42% 32% 80% Flat across areas

better monitoring and assessment of national and EU energy markets

25% 44% 82%

better monitoring and assessment of energy efficiency policies

21% 27% 55% Flat across areas

better monitoring of progress towards climate target?

18% 29% 58% 20% no 18% no opinion and 14% low contribution

better monitoring of renewable energy developments and targets

18% 29% 54% 20% low, 13% no opinion

better monitoring of research and innovation developments in climate and energy topics

6% 22% 33% No – 31%, low 25%

better integration of national energy systems with those of other countries and better cooperation of Member States at EU level

15% 21% 47% Mixed. 24% low, 18% no. Lower for energy efficiency

transparency of energy policy in Member States (e.g. wider availability of data)

33% 35% 81% Slightly weaker in nuclear


56

Question – Have the obligations contributed to …. ?

Considerable impact

Moderate Impacts

Positive1 Comment

transparency of public and private energy investment and spending

15% 25% 53%

collecting data on issues that were previously not measured

18% 38% 66% Strongest in energy market, less in nuclear

collecting better quality and more accurate data

30% 36% 69%

collecting data on a consistent basis with other Member States to allow comparison / benchmarking?

34% 37% 80% Pretty flat across areas.

public confidence in safety measures in Member States

13% 43% 67% Nuclear only 28% very little

1 Positive is the percentage of respondents who replied considerable and moderate, excluding those who gave no opinion. Green is >66%, Amber is 50-66%, Red is <50%

The key conclusions that can be drawn from the survey results are that:

• The reporting and planning obligations are perceived as having a positive contribution against

the vast majority of the objectives;

• The contribution of planning and reporting is perceived as more positive in terms of tracking

compliance than it is in terms of developing policies, improving the stability / predictability of

policies or helping improve integration and cooperation between Member States;

• In terms of contribution by energy union objective, the reporting and planning obligations are

perceived as making a bigger contribution in energy security and markets than in energy

efficiency;

• It is not possible to neatly split the objectives between those clearly focussed on planning and

those clearly focussed on reporting (in order to assess which area is perceived as being more

successful). The only objective which can be clearly linked to one or the other is arguably

‘been important for policy change (e.g. development of sectoral policies)’ to planning.

The interviews did not provide a great deal of input related to the effectiveness of reporting and

planning obligation in specific Directives or Regulations. This is likely to be due to the difficulty of

isolating the contribution of reporting and planning and the large number of pieces of legislation of

relevance. However, the stakeholders did point out several general benefits of reporting, such as the

fact that it allows the MSs and the Commission to track and monitor compliance with, and

implementation of, the legislation, to use the data collected in other settings, and to provide

synthesised information on the issues at hand, which would otherwise not be produced.

2) To what extent were planning and reporting obligations necessary for energy policy developments?

From the MS interviews it is apparent that some of the planning and reporting obligations are regarded

as relevant to European and national energy policy making, in particular setting up plans and

monitoring their progress (e.g. NEEAPs under the Energy Efficiency Directive, or the Emergency and

Preventive Action Plans and Risk Assessment Plans under the security of supply directives). Due to these

obligations, the MSs have had to prepare policy documents/ strategies to explain the state of play in

their respective fields.

There was a difference between the MSs with regard to the extent that they felt EU obligations were

necessary for national policy making. Some, typically more western European MSs felt that they already

had similar obligations in their national legislation, so the added value of the EU obligations was

limited. However, other MSs, particularly some central and eastern European countries felt that the

added value was significant as they did not collect and synthesise such information on a national level.


57

The survey results show that 65% of the Member State respondents had a positive opinion on the role of

reporting and planning obligations on policy development, with a slightly larger percentage feeling that

this was important in renewable energy and markets but a lower percentage thinking this was the case

in nuclear policy.

On the Commission side, the information collected from MSs is deemed useful in gaining valuable

information on how the MSs are doing with respect to energy legislation. This information is then useful

for the EP and the Council in their policy making and in making legislative changes. However,

obligations that are fixed via templates cannot always be amended rapidly enough to satisfy the

evolving information needs of policy-makers.

Figure 5-1: Importance of obligations for policy changes in the selected area in MSs

Drawing together the survey and interview results with our desktop review our expert view is that in

general the monitoring and reporting obligations have met their objectives. However, the extent to

which this is perceived to be true is affected by the following factors:

The maturity of the policy area in general. This reflects the need of Member States (and the

Commission) to improve their knowledge of an area. This does not imply that the need is greater in

areas that might be considered ‘newer’, for example renewable energy as opposed to nuclear energy.

The implication is more that the need increases in areas where there is a pressing need for policy to

evolve. For example, security of supply is a very old objective in energy policy, but the increasing use

of gas, and the concentration of the gas supply of some Member States from geo-politically unstable

countries vulnerable sources, has brought this issue (and its associated data) very much to the forefront

of policy maker’s minds. This means that the perception for monitoring and reporting data on security

of supply is likely to be more positive, because it has been used more recently, and to address a live

issue, than data associated with an issue where there has been less recent (urgent) need to use the

data. The importance of EU level action is also relevant here as some issues, such as security of supply,

are more obviously amenable to an EU level response, than others. For example although the EC has an


58

important role in setting energy use reduction targets, and renewable energy growth targets, the

detailed way in which these targets are achieved requires a MS level response.

The maturity of the policy area in each Member State. It is clear that there is a large variation

between Member States in the maturity of their approach to specific energy topics. Some Member

States (largely the ‘old’ and Western countries) would consider that the majority of their policy (and its

associated monitoring) was developed in advance or at least in parallel with that of the European

Commission. This implies that the reporting that they need to do to the Commission can largely be

considered as ‘passing on’ of information that they already collect and hold. However, in the majority

of Member States which have joined the EU more recently, many parts of energy policy have had to be

reformed in order to comply with the energy acquis. This has implied a need for active change and the

need for these Member States to develop new policy, with new associated monitoring and reporting

procedures. Where these policy areas are new, or significantly different to previous approaches, this

will imply that the Member State in question will find the monitoring and reporting useful because it

structures their work in a way which is designed to achieve both the energy and the political

transposition objectives.

The ability of data to capture policy progress in an accurate, useful and widely accepted way. From

the opinions gathered in this evaluation, and from our experience in the collation and presentation of

energy statistics, it is clear that some policy areas are much easier to capture via monitoring data than

others. For example, data on the installed capacity and output of renewable electricity is a much more

robust and accepted indicator of success in renewable energy policy, than number of patents or

research and development expenditure is of success in energy related research and development policy.

These concerns about the quality and usefulness of data are likely to be a key factor in the poor

perception of the effectiveness of monitoring and reporting obligations in research and innovation and

monitoring of expenditure.

If we turn our attention to the extent to which data indicates whether the reporting and planning

obligations have achieved their objectives, we need to go back to the purpose of the planning and

reporting obligations and their relative contribution to the achievement of the objectives of each piece

of energy legislation. As discussed in section 3.2.5., the justification for having reporting and

monitoring obligations as part of energy and environmental (and other) policy is well established in

economic theory. However there is no literature which attempts to quantify the relative importance of

the reporting and monitoring aspect and none of the evaluations that we have reviewed have

attempted to do this. The lack of any attempt to quantify the contribution of reporting and monitoring

is not surprising given the difficulty in isolating its effect and the fact that in order to accurately assess

the impact you would need to compare a policy with monitoring and reporting to a policy that was

identical but had no monitoring and reporting, and such a policy seems unlikely to exist.

Therefore our conclusion is that because monitoring and reporting have not been shown to have a

negative impact on achieving the objectives of the pieces of any of the pieces of legislation that we

have reviewed and that there is a strong and accepted case in policy compliance theory that monitoring

and reporting have a positive impact on policy compliance (and hence impact) that monitoring and

reporting have made a positive contribution to achieving the objectives of the pieces of legislation we

have reviewed.


59

3) Have Member States' planning and reporting obligations met their objective (e.g. assessing the

impact and implementation of EU energy policies), inter alia, by providing information that is not

easily available from other sources?

The data review indicates that in general, the Member States provide information to the Commission

that is not available from other sources, e.g. information on national measures adopted, etc. In this

sense, the objective is met.

There were a number of examples of specific reporting obligations that the Commission interviewees

felt were not provided by other sources and are very useful. These include:

• The reporting obligations of the Oil Stocks Directive (2009/119/EC) are a means of ensuring that

Member States have the required oil stocks in place and hence comply with the Directive’s

requirements;

• The information on cogeneration and district heating and cooling reported by MS under Article 24

of the EED is considered very useful by the Commission since such data is not available from any

other sources;

• The information concerning Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) provided under Regulation

347/2013 allows the Commission to monitor projects’ implementation.

However, according to some MSs, some parts of the reporting obligations concerning statistics are

already provided to the Commission via Eurostat. This is confirmed by our desktop analysis which found

that of the 81 identified indicators reported by Member States, 27 indicators show a complete match

with data from Eurostat. In addition, the feeling of interviewees is that some information gets reported

to the Commission more than once.

The most complicated area seems to be those Member State obligations which are reported to the

Commission and other organisations, such as ENTSO-E, ENTSOG or joint conventions. The interviewees

have indicated that there are multiple overlaps in these obligations.

The survey indicates that MS policy makers have a positive view on the role of monitoring and reporting

with 82% giving a positive view of its role in checking compliance, but with a somewhat lower share

(66%) feeling that the reporting and monitoring obligations collect data that is not available elsewhere.

Our conclusion on this question follows on from the conclusion to the previous question. There is some

variation between Member States in the perception of how useful the planning and reporting obligations

are, but these variations can be explained by the maturity of the policy area in general and in the

Member State in question. The perceived quality and relevance of the available data also affects the

perception of usefulness in some policy areas. Both our analysis and Member State opinion indicate that

there is some duplication of reporting, and this is an area that should be investigated with a view to

removing the duplication (see Section 5.3, 5.6 and Annex E).

The collation of Member State data that the Commission carry out creates an EU level data set that

would not otherwise be available. This collation allows comparisons between Member States and also

enables EU progress as a whole to be measured and addressed.


60

4) Do Member States fulfil their current planning and reporting obligations in a correct and timely

manner? What are the consequences if this does not happen?

Whether the obligations are fulfilled on time varies. The Commission interviewees reported that they

have to remind some Member States to deliver. Member States’ failure to report on time has

implications for the Commission’s reporting, if the latter relies on Member States’ inputs. In the

absence of input from some Member States, the Commission prepares a report based only on the

available submissions, which may have implications for the quality or representativeness of the

findings.

The fact that MSs occasionally have difficulties with reporting on time has been confirmed by some MS

interviewees. The reasons given for the delays include the time-consuming nature of some of the

obligations (such as the Emergency and Preventive Action Plans and Risk Assessment Plans, where

Member States have missed the submission deadline), the need to trace back data as it was not

previously reported in the correct scope or classification at the national level (such as the reporting

obligation in the Energy Labelling Directive), or due to waiting for the release of data from Eurostat53 if

these have to be used in the reports (such as in the progress report for the Renewable Energy

Directive).

Infringement procedures take several steps to encourage countries to comply before ultimately leading

to the ECJ and possible fines. There are three successive stages, a letter of formal notice, a reasoned

opinion, and referral to the ECJ. We did not discuss the question of what happens if the reports are

delivered late with the MS interviewees, but our review of the literature and previous evaluations

highlights that the economic theory associated with the benefits of policy monitoring suggests that

some form of punishment for non-reporting is required in order to enforce compliance (and achieve the

benefits). There is evidence of the Commission being willing to pursue Member States which fail to

transpose Directives in a timely and/or accurate way (for example 19 Member States were recently

pursued for not transposing the Energy Efficiency Directive54). The Commission has also sent reasoned

opinions for lack of timely or accurate reporting (in the last year Slovenia for failing to timely submit

the NEEAP and long-term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national stock of

residential and commercial buildings55 and Romania have been pursued for not reporting on the gas

supply security regulations). We can therefore conclude that the Commission does pursue both poor

transposition and poor / no reporting. A review of the amount of reasoned opinions sent indicates that

poor/no transposition is much more commonly pursued than poor/no reporting. This is understandable

given that if poor transposition is allowed the national legislation will be fundamentally flawed, but

poor reporting can potentially be corrected at the next reporting round. The fact that poor reporting is

pursued indicates that there is a threat of sanction for non-compliance, which is positive in terms of

improving effectiveness.

5) To what extent does the information included in Member States' plans and reports contribute to

shaping EU energy policies (Is there qualitative and/or quantitative evidence for this)?

The EC officials interviewed and surveyed reported that the data does have an influence on shaping EU

energy policies. We have not been able to identify specific examples of this, but the MS data on

53 Data released by Eurostat follows a concrete and publicly available calendar (eventual delays - if happening - depend on the respect of deadlines by MSs). 54 http://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/member-states-face-legal-action-over-energy-efficiency/ 55 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4489_en.htm


61

progress in renewable energy and energy efficiency has clearly influenced the policy development

process in these areas, because if the Commission did not collate and sum up the MS data to understand

progress for Europe as a whole this would not be done by anyone else.

6) To what extent have planning and reporting obligations contributed to improving national policy

making (Is there qualitative and/or quantitative evidence for this)?

There is some qualitative evidence for this in the interviews. The response varies per MS. Where

national legislation included similar, or the same, obligations as the EU obligations before the EU

obligations came into force, the interviewees felt that the contribution of the EU obligations to national

policy making was limited. However, if the MS did not have the same, or a similar obligation prior to

the EU obligation the opposite case was reported.

The answer to this question somewhat overlaps with the first question on effectiveness. The extent to

which the planning and reporting obligations contribute to national policy making will be strongly

influenced by the maturity of the policy in general and even more by the maturity of the policy in the

Member State in question. Where the planning and reporting obligations relate to a longstanding policy

area, where relatively little has changed in recent years, it will appear that the planning and reporting

obligations have little influence on national policy making, because there will not have been much

active policy making in these areas. However, it could be argued that if the data highlighted trends

which needed addressing, either for some Member States, or at an EU level, then the reporting would

have an important positive influence on national policy making. For policy areas which are newer,

and/or more active, particularly if they are new to the Member State, the planning and reporting is

much more likely to make a positive contribution to national policy making. This positive contribution

will be less apparent in those Member States which developed the policy action (and the associated

planning and reporting obligations) in advance of, or in parallel with, the EU level policy. This reduction

relates to the fact that the planning and reporting will be more associated with the national level

action than with the EU level action and it is very difficult to try and identify which parts of the policy

(and reporting and planning obligations) are EU specific and which would have occurred without EU

level requirements.

7) Is the information supplied by Member States relevant to the Commission's evaluation of the

Member States' implementation of EU law and progress towards the specific objectives?

The data review clearly indicates that this objective is central to the reporting and planning obligations

contained in the majority of the energy acquis. Several obligations concern reporting on the

implementation of EU legislation. In these cases, the information provided by Member States is deemed

relevant by the Commission. For example, the reporting obligations of the Oil Stocks Directive

(2009/119/EC) are a means of ensuring that Member States have the required oil stocks in place and

hence comply with the Directive’s requirements. The information concerning PCIs provided under

Regulation 347/2013 allows the Commission to monitor projects’ implementation.

The Member State survey indicates that the clear majority (82%) of MS policy makers surveyed agree

that the reporting and planning obligations have had a positive effect on monitoring the transposition,

implementation and enforcement of the policies in the energy acquis.

Our conclusion on this question is that the information supplied via the reporting and planning

obligations is relevant to the Commission’s evaluation of Member State implementation of EU law and


62

progress towards the specific objectives. The information that is collected is all relevant to the

objectives of each piece of legislation (except for some duplications, see section 5.3, 5.6 and Annex E).

There is clear evidence of EU level policy review and adjustment based on the information collected,

for example on the ongoing reviews of actions to improve energy efficiency.

Effectiveness conclusions

The planning and reporting obligations are perceived as having a positive contribution against the vast

majority of the objectives. But their contribution is perceived as more positive in terms of tracking

compliance than it is in terms of developing policies, improving the stability / predictability of policies

or helping improve integration and cooperation between Member States. This perception is backed up

by our desktop analysis of the purpose of the reporting and planning obligations within each piece of

legislation.

The benefits of planning and reporting include the fact that it allows the MSs and the Commission to

track and monitor compliance with, and implementation of, the legislation, to use the data collected in

other settings, and to provide synthesised information on the issues at hand, which would not otherwise

be produced.

From the MS interviews it is apparent that some of the planning and reporting obligations are regarded

as relevant to national energy policy making, in particular setting up plans and monitoring their

progress (e.g. NEEAPs under the Energy Efficiency Directive, or the Emergency and Preventive Action

Plans and Risk Assessment Plans under the security of supply directives). Some, typically more western

European MSs felt that they already have similar obligations in their national legislation, so the

effectiveness in shaping policies (and the added value of the EU obligations) was limited. However,

other MSs, particularly some central and eastern European countries felt that the opposite was true

The survey results show that 65% of the Member State respondents had a positive opinion on the role of

reporting and planning obligations on policy development, with a slightly larger percentage feeling that

this was important in renewable energy and markets but a lower percentage thinking this was the case

in nuclear policy. On the Commission side, the information collected from MSs is deemed useful in

gaining valuable information on how the MSs are doing with respect to energy legislation and our data

review confirms that the vast majority of this information is not available elsewhere. There is evidence

that the data is used to adjust EU level policy, so we conclude that the information is useful for the EP

and the Council in their policy making and in making legislative changes.

The influence of the reporting and planning obligations on Member State policy is affected by the

maturity (and activity level) of the policy in general, with monitoring and reporting making a more

active contribution in more active policy areas (as would be expected, though it clearly has a passive

monitoring role in less active areas, with any negative changes in the data alerting policy makers to the

need for action). The influence is also affected by the maturity of the policy area in the Member State,

with the EU level monitoring and reporting having a less important contribution in those Member States

that developed policy in the area in advance of, or in parallel with, EU level action, because the

monitoring and reporting will be associated with national policy, with the EU reporting seen more as a

‘passing on’ of information collected for national purposes.


63

Efficiency 5.2

1) To what extent are the costs to be borne by Member States due to their reporting and planning

obligations justified, given the policy changes achieved?

The interviews touched upon the usefulness of the EC planning and reporting obligations for national

energy policy-making (discussed in the effectiveness section). In general, the obligations are useful and

justified as they bring forward further changes at the national level. In particular, the planning

obligations have been considered as very useful. For reporting obligations, qualitative interviews

revealed that it is not always clear to the officials responsible for reporting what the use and the

purpose is of the reported data (see Annex E). This indicates the complexity of information flows in the

current reporting system. The level of detail required from the Member States’ (and the Commission’s)

reports, in particular annual reports where the MSs have to report on a lot of details, can result in a

relatively high administrative burden on the staff responsible for reporting. This also depends on

whether the data gathered at a national level matches the level of detail or classification required by

the EC. If it matches, the administrative burden of reporting is lower as the data is readily available.

However, if the MS needs to retrieve data at another level of detail or classification than what is

normally collected at national level, then the administrative burden of doing so is high.

It is not clear from the interviews or our data review to what extent policy changes are achieved. It was

mentioned by a couple of interviewees that in some countries, the national legislation already brought

forward any policy changes that were needed, even without the EC obligations (although this highlights

the important point, as discussed in effectiveness, of which policy is perceived as coming first, the EU

or national?), while in other countries, the EC obligations were the main driver behind the policy

changes. Respondents in the survey indicated that overall EC obligations are not perceived as

duplicating existing national obligations (34%), while 48% thought that less than half of the obligations

are duplicative, and 18% thought more than half of the EC obligations duplicate national obligations.

This shows the variety of opinions and experiences across the Member States it also reflects our

conclusions under effectiveness on the factors that influence the perception of the importance of EU

reporting obligations.

When looking at the costs of the obligations, there were a variety of estimates across the energy areas

(see section 4.4). Respondents in the energy efficiency area indicated that their costs for fulfilling their

obligations are very high. In the other energy areas, the costs were of a relatively similar magnitude,

with some exceptions.

When comparing these costs with the policy changes achieved, or expected to be achieved, the answer

is not straightforward, as neither the survey, the interviews or the evaluations we reviewed shed

sufficient light on the monetary value of the policy changes achieved (or to be achieved). From the

interview answers, it appears that in general, the EC obligations are perceived as justified given the

policy changes they might achieve.

When looking at the different areas, the costs are considered justified, at least to some extent

(‘somewhat’ or ‘a great extent’)56, across all the energy areas except for security of energy supply,

where 37% of respondents had no opinion and 35% gave only a slight positive answer (‘somewhat

56 The multiple choice options in the survey ranged from ‘a great extent’, to ‘somewhat’, ‘very little’, ‘not at all’ or ‘no opinion’.


64

justified’). The highest level of justification of costs of obligations is apparent in the area

decarbonisation/ renewable energy, while in energy efficiency, around 30% of respondents indicate the

costs are very little or not justified at all, and in the nuclear energy field this raises to almost 36% of

respondents. This variation is again likely to be a reflection of the factors discussed in effectiveness,

i.e. the general maturity and activity level in the policy area and the perceived (or real) maturity level

of the policy area in the Member State in comparison to the maturity at EU level.

Figure 5-2 How much are the administrative burden of the planning and reporting obligations justified by achieved policy changes

With regard to the importance of obligations for policy changes, around 37% of all respondents consider

that obligations have been important for policy change. This is considered important in particular in the

area of decarbonisation/ renewable energy and internal energy market, and less so in the area of

energy efficiency and energy supply security. This again reflects our conclusion on the importance of

general and relative maturity of the policy area; with respondents from Member States where the

policy area is relatively new to them, and the objectives and any targets are perceived as being driven

by EU legislation much more likely to perceive the planning and reporting obligations as useful (and

justified).

2) Is the administrative burden of Member States' planning and reporting obligations proportionate to

the need to assess the impact of EU energy policies and the implementation of EU law (i.e. the

benefits achieved)?

Some of the MS interviewees were of the opinion that having the planning and reporting obligations in

place is justified and necessary, even if they impose a high administrative burden on them. The main

benefits mentioned in these interviews were: the possibility of tracking and monitor compliance,

effectiveness and implementation of the legislation, creation of a level playing field in the EU, where

all MSs need to report on their progress, creation of common targets, and a possibility to use the EC

obligations for national policy making. The planning obligations were emphasised as being useful in

developing new strategies and contributing to national energy policy making.

Figure 5-3 How much are the administrative cost of the planning and reporting obligations proportionate to benefits


65

Across the different energy areas, around 70% of respondents consider the costs somewhat, or to a

great extent, proportionate to the benefits in the decarbonisation/ renewable energy area (50% and

20%, respectively), around 77% in the Internal energy market area (52% and 25%, respectively), and

around 63% in the energy supply security area (33% and 30%, respectively). The respondents in the areas

of nuclear energy and energy efficiency are of the opinion that the costs are less proportionate to the

benefits than in the other fields, 22% indicating very little and 17% not at all proportionate in the

energy efficiency areas, and 30% very little and 4% not at all in the nuclear energy area. These findings

are a reasonable reflection of our conclusion of a greater degree of satisfaction with the reporting

obligations in those policy areas where there has been more recent activity, with the notable exception

of energy efficiency. The relatively poor opinion of energy efficiency is likely to be affected by the

perception of relatively slow progress in this policy area.

Section 4.4 and 4.5 elaborate on the costs and benefits of planning and reporting obligations according

to the survey. The cost figures show that in the field of energy efficiency, MS respondents reported

large costs related to outsourcing and subcontracting activities, compared to other energy areas. With

respect to the benefits, section 4.5 elaborates on the answers of respondents. The survey showed that

the majority of respondents, irrespective of the energy policy area, consider that obligations

considerably or moderately contribute to improved compliance, transposition checking, monitoring of

the implementation, enforcement and performance of EU law (ca.39% and 32% respectively). This is the

case for most areas, with more respondents being very positive in the areas of decarbonisation/

renewable energy and internal energy market compared to other areas. This latter point reflects the

relatively high level of recent activity in these policy areas, plus a perception of the relevance of EU

level activity / intervention in the internal energy market area.

Some of the other benefits reported by the survey respondents include:

Contribution to better monitoring of research and innovation developments in climate and

energy topics – only two areas were covered by respondents, i.e. decarbonisation/ renewable

energy and energy efficiency. In the energy efficiency area, 37% of respondents have an

opinion that there is no contribution and 14% that there is low contribution. In the

decarbonisation/ renewable energy area, 23% think there is no contribution and 37% think

there is low contribution. This low contribution is likely to relate to the fact that the majority

of reporting on EU level R+D activity (the H2020 and FP7 programmes) was not included within

the instruments we considered. The low level of confidence in the ability of statistics to

accurately capture research and innovation developments may also be a factor here.

Contribution to collecting better quality and more accurate data – the vast majority of

respondents are of the opinion that the planning and reporting obligations contribute

somewhat (36%) and to a great extent (30%) to better quality and more accurate data. 73% of

respondents believe so in the area of decarbonisation/ renewable energy, 70% in the area of

energy supply security and internal energy market, 66% in the energy efficiency area and 48%

in the nuclear energy area. These results might reflect the fact that these different areas have

a different perception of the quality of the data in their area.

Contribution to collecting data on a consistent basis with other Member States to allow

comparison/ benchmarking - More than half of current respondents have responded positive

regarding the contribution of obligations to collecting data on a consistent basis with other

Member States to allow comparison / benchmarking (in particular ca. 34% of respondents

considered that obligations contribute to a great extent and ca.37% somewhat). This is the


66

case for 90% of the respondents in the decarbonisation/ renewable energy area, 76% in the

energy efficiency area, 73% in the internal energy market, 69% in the energy supply security

and 58% in the nuclear energy area. These results might also reflect the fact that different

areas have different perceptions of the importance of comparing themselves with other

Member States, which is likely to relate to the perceived value of EU level policy objectives in

a particular area and the relative maturity of that policy area in each MS, because those MSs

who are well ahead of the EU average are unlikely to be as interested in comparing their

performance as those that are well below average.

These answers provide evidence that the respondents in the energy efficiency and nuclear energy areas

believe the costs are less proportionate to the benefits compared to the different energy areas. These

answers correspond to a large extent to the survey findings above on the question of the proportionality

of costs and benefits, where energy efficiency and nuclear energy areas scored the lowest in terms of

proportion of costs and benefits achieved. However, it should be noted, that in both cases, the

dominant answer is that these costs are at least to some extent justified. As stated earlier this is likely

to reflect the relative lack of activity (for most MSs) in the nuclear energy area and (possibly) a

perception of general lack of progress in energy efficiency (although this perception is largely driven by

the data collected via the reporting obligations).

Another potential explanation of these results is that in the case of energy efficiency, the average costs

of these obligations have been the highest, compared to the other energy fields, possibly due to the

outsourcing and subcontracting costs related to the Energy Efficiency Directive obligations. On the

other hand, in the case of energy efficiency, about half of the current respondents consider that the

obligations have made either a moderate or a considerable contribution to the better monitoring and

assessment of energy efficiency policies (ca. 27% and 28% respectively). In the field of nuclear energy,

it seems that the benefits are not always perceived as considerable and hence the costs of these

obligations appear less justified.

3) What factors influence the costs (i.e. administrative burden) of Member States' planning and

reporting obligations? Is there qualitative or quantitative evidence allowing to weigh the impact of

each factor on costs?

Only respondents in the area of energy efficiency answered this question in the survey. The results

show that the most significant factors influence the cost of planning and reporting obligations are ‘the

number of reporting stakeholders’ (20% of all respondents), ‘the quality of data received’ and the ‘size

of the member state’ (19% of all respondents), where these three factors account together for ca. 60%

of the responses. The remaining less significant factors according to these stakeholders are

‘Unavailability of technical solutions’ (with ca. 12%) and ‘the fact that competences are shared

between national and regional level’, ‘redundant reporting and planning requirements’ and ‘complexity

of national administration’, which represent ca. 8% of responses each.


67

Figure 5-4: Factors influencing the administrative burden of planning and reporting obligations

The quality of data received, and whether this data is readily available in the Member State has also

been mentioned by interviewed stakeholders as a significant cost factor. Several other interviewees

mentioned that the high level of detail required by EU reporting and monitoring obligations is also a

significant cost factor.

The answers relevant to the distribution of costs of planning and reporting collected through the survey

also shed some light on the relevant cost factors. According to the survey respondents, 36% of the costs

related to planning obligations are associated with the preparation of the plan, while the rest of the

costs are more or less equally distributed between setting reporting/monitoring systems to trace

progress (23%), the development of reporting templates (21%) and other tasks (20%). When examining

the specific tasks required by reporting obligations, the collection of data is the main cost category

(32% of the costs in average), - this is consistent with the stakeholder answers above - followed by the

preparation of data to fit the reporting requirement (26%), the preparation of qualitative analysis for

the report (20%) and filling in the form (13%).

The data collection and preparation for reporting and planning obligations are the critical cost factors.

It also appears that there is an appetite for additional technical measures to help with the collation and

submission of data. It is not surprising that the size of the member state and the number of reporting

stakeholders increases the administrative burden as both of these factors will increase the number of

data points and hence amount of effort required. From the analysis of the other questions we can also

conclude that the maturity of the policy area in the Member State concerned will have some effect on

the administrative burden because those Member States who have developed the policy area in

advance, or at least in parallel with the European level policy, are much more likely to have parallel

planning and reporting mechanisms in place so the European level planning and reporting requirements

will be a process of ‘passing on’ or repackaging of information.


68

4) Have electronic platforms and/or common templates and/or common assumptions and definitions

been effectively used for planning and reporting obligations to decrease the administrative burden for

Member States and/or make it easier for the Commission to evaluate and use the information and data

provided?

The interviews with the Member States showed that in general, the Member States are willing to and/

or already use templates and electronic platforms provided by the Commission. Whether this has

decreased their administrative burden could not be investigated in detail, but from some of the

responses of the interviewees, developing and using their own templates does save them time.

Furthermore, the Member States reported that they use standard Microsoft Office tools, such as Excel

or Access, to do their reporting. With respect to the security of supply plans, the Member States upload

their files on the EC internal system, known as CIRCABC. MSs expressed their satisfaction with the

system as it allows them to track the documents, indicates when new plans have been uploaded and

also gathers all accompanying documents on one online platform. CIRCABC also enables users to see the

non-confidential documentation from other countries.

Commission officials in their interviews added that several of the obligations make use of electronic

platforms for reporting. For example, the electronic system EMOS is currently implemented for

reporting under Council Regulation (EC) 2964/95 and Council Decision 1999/280. The system is

considered very user-friendly and its use is currently being considered for obligations stemming from

other legislation.

Furthermore, according to the Commission officials, a reporting template setting out the information

required under the various reporting provisions of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) was

developed by the responsible unit in order to facilitate and standardise (to the extent possible) Member

States’ reporting. The report that results from using the template is compact (approximately 10 pages)

and easy to use by both Member States and the Commission. DG Energy’s template also provided the

basis for Eurostat’s design of the electronic template used by Member States to report renewable

energy statistics. DG Energy worked closely with Eurostat to ensure the same data is reported to both

institutions. The future aim is to achieve a single electronic submission, where Member States would fill

in one template covering reporting obligations to both DG Energy and Eurostat. This provides an

example where the common templates and an electronic platform reduces the costs for the Member

States as well as for the Commission. MS officials also see benefits of more detailed guidelines and

support from the EC for the comprehensive Preventive Action Plans, Emergency Plans and Risks

Assessments under the Regulation 994/2010, to improve the quality and coherence of these reports.

Another example of such administrative burden reduction has been the Regulation 347/2013 on

guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, which requires project promoters to report to ACER

and to the competent authorities on the implementation of projects of common interest (PCIs). ACER is

required to prepare a consolidated report for the regional groups, while competent authorities have to

report annually to the regional groups. To simplify the work of project promoters and avoid duplication,

DG Energy (Unit B1), ACER and the competent authorities have developed a structured online survey

which contains questions of interest to ACER, as well as questions of interest to the competent

authorities. Thus, project promoters only have to fill in one survey, on the basis of which both ACER

and the competent authorities can subsequently prepare their respective reports. The survey is

implemented through the Commission’s electronic platform ‘Your Voice in Europe’.


69

We can therefore conclude that common reporting templates have been developed for some of the

legislative areas covered by our analysis and that where this is the case this reduces the burden for the

Member States submitting data and improves the usability of the information for the Commission, for

example by ensuring that Eurostat and DG Energy have the same data. This conclusion suggests that

common reporting templates are a beneficial approach and that their use should be considered in areas

where they are not currently used. Electronic platforms can similarly reduce the burden, especially for

quantitative input. When it comes to qualitative input, such platforms do not reduce the administrative

burden much.

5) Who are the main parties concerned by the existing planning and reporting obligations (only

national, regional or local public authorities or also the private sector; if also the private sector, to

what extent are SMEs concerned)?

The main parties concerned by the existing planning and reporting obligations have been analysed in

greater detail in chapter 3 in the section on responsible entity and recipient. This analysis concluded

that there are two main reporting parties:

Member State to the Commission (34 obligations within the scope of this study);

Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (25 obligations within the scope of

this study).

Other concerned parties include:

• ACER reporting to various recipients stemming from regulations on trans-European energy

infrastructure (347/2013), wholesale energy market integrity and transparency (1227/2011)

and a separate regulation for establishing ACER (713/2009).

• TSOs reporting to ENTSO-E and ENTSOG (Regulation 714/2009 and 715/2009; Directive

2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC) and ENTSO-E and ENTSOG reporting to ACER and the Commission

(Regulation 714/2009 and 715/2009).

• Advisory Committee specifically set for the execution of the directive on radioactive shipments

as required by Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom.

Where company data is required, companies need to report to these agencies. This is of particular

relevance to electricity and gas companies who supply data on gas and electricity markets,

transmission, distribution, wholesale and user prices, statistics on users access, etc., and project

promoters implementing the Projects of Common Interests.

These answers are largely consistent with the results from the survey question, on which stakeholders

fulfilling the obligations and collecting the respective data bear additional burden. The results show

that this burden is borne the most by public authorities (ca. 53%) followed with a large distance by

large companies (ca. 21%) and SMEs (ca. 11%).


70

Figure 5-5: Stakeholders bearing an additional burden by reporting obligations by area

Efficiency conclusions

Efficiency considers the relationship between the resources used by an intervention and the changes

generated by the intervention. In this case this translates into the extent to which the costs/ resources

used for the planning and reporting obligations have been converted into benefits/ effects resulting

from these obligations. Our review of the evaluations of the pieces of legislation reveals that there

have so far not been any attempts to assess how much of the benefits of each piece of legislation can

be attributed to the reporting and planning obligations. However, there is clear evidence from policy

theory (albeit at a qualitative level) that reporting and monitoring are a very important part of policy

compliance, so we can conclude that monitoring and reporting do make an important contribution to

achieving the policy objectives, but that the relative share is not known. We have also gathered

evidence on this area from the MS survey targeting all Member States and all obligations within the

scope of this study, and the stakeholder interviews with a selection of MS and Commission officials. Our

analysis of the survey and interview results provide the following additional conclusions:

• The majority of stakeholders surveyed or interviewed are of the opinion that the administrative

burden incurred by these obligations is justified at least to some extent by achieved policy

changes. Even though the evidence collected does not allow us to make any robust conclusions on

the actual policy changes achieved through these obligations (and the evaluations we have

reviewed do not make a quantitative link between policy changes and reporting), the

stakeholders consider these obligations as useful in bringing forward changes at the national

level, particularly the planning obligations. There are differences across the Member States, as

for some Member States, similar obligations had existed at the national level prior to the EC

obligations, while for others, the EC obligations are new to them and are seen as the main driver

for change. This point matches the conclusion made elsewhere of the importance of the relative

maturity level of the policy area within each Member State;

• A similar conclusion relates to the question of whether the administrative burden is proportionate

to the benefits achieved. The survey and interviews have confirmed the existence of several


71

benefits of the planning and reporting obligations, such as contribution to improved compliance,

transposition checking, monitoring of the implementation, better quality data and improved

transparency. The costs of these obligations vary widely between each energy policy area as well

as per obligation and Member State. In general, more than half of the respondents agreed that

the costs incurred are somewhat, or to a great extent, proportionate to the benefits achieved,

even though some energy areas, such as energy efficiency have much higher costs than other

areas. This matches our literature finding on the importance of reporting to compliance;

• As would be expected, important factors that influence reporting costs are the number of

reporting stakeholders, the quality of data received, time spent to collect and prepare data for

reporting and the size of the Member State;

• Electronic platforms and common templates, with some provided by the Commission, are used for

reporting. There is not enough evidence to prove that they decrease the administrative burden of

reporting, but from the interviews it is apparent that in general these platforms and templates

are considered very useful and practical;

• The main parties concerned with the existing planning and reporting obligations are the public

authorities at the national and EC level as well as some agencies. To some extent large

companies are also affected, namely those that report on specific energy data to the different

agencies and the Commission via the national public authorities. We have found no evidence of a

reporting impact /burden on SMEs.

Coherence 5.3

1) To what extent are the planning and reporting obligations for each sector of the EU energy

legislation coherent among themselves (e.g. scope, methodology, timing, periodicity, etc.)? If not, are

the differences justified?

The Commission and Member State interviewees did not identify major incoherencies in the existing

obligations. Nevertheless, there is some evidence of a lack of coherence in the frequency of reporting

obligations, and in the deadlines for the submission of reports on related issues. Our desk top review

also revealed some duplication of reporting between what is reported to DG Energy and what is

reported to Eurostat. According to one Member State official, there are reporting obligations on similar

topics that have different deadlines for submission. If there is a time lag between reporting on related

topics, the issue being measured by the data may have evolved from one report to the next, leading to

different results and conclusions, even though the reporting is on similar or related issues.

Within certain areas, such as energy efficiency (see Figure 3-3), the reporting frequencies of different

obligations vary widely. Improving the coherence between these obligations in terms of reporting

frequency could reduce the administrative burden for the relevant stakeholders, and limit the risk that

the source data may have meanwhile evolved leading to different results and conclusions, even though

reporting is on similar aspects.

Other respondents pointed out that for some directives the frequency of the reports’ update should be

more in line with the topic of the obligation. For example, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) 2964/95

requires an annual update, but its content concerns market matters that are very slow to change.

Interviewees were of the opinion that reporting even every two years would be too frequent. The

European Commission has proposed modifying the frequency of reporting to every four years, which


72

seems to be more in line with market reality. However, on other aspects market evolution is much

more dynamic and trimestral reporting would be more suitable rather than annual.

Member States’ views regarding the coherence of reporting frequencies and deadlines were also shared

by some of the Commission interviewees. One Commission official noted that some legislative acts

contain different obligations that have the same reporting frequency, but different timelines.

Streamlining the submission deadlines would, in his view, increase efficiency for both the Commission

and Member States (for example, it would enable the Commission to simultaneously remind Member

States about the submission of different reports).

With regard to the Commission’s obligations, REFIT FC interviewees noted that evaluations by the

Commission are sometimes required too early in the implementation process, when there is little

evidence from the application of the legislation to report on (see Annex E).

The survey results also indicate perceived inconsistencies in the timing and/or periodicity of

obligations. Across all areas, 24 respondents indicated inconsistencies in the timing of different

obligations, 21 indicated inconsistencies regarding the periodicity of reporting, while 22 respondents

saw inconsistencies in both timing and periodicity (see Annex G, Q30 and Q31).

At the same time, some Member State interviewees indicated that “coherence is ‘nice to have’, but not

crucial”.

Figure 5-6 Inconsistencies concerning the timing and periodicity

Our desktop review of the reporting obligations reveals some duplication between reporting and the

REFIT FC survey suggests some concerns about lack of consistency in terms of reporting timing and

periodicity. However, the survey and interviews also suggest that there are no major concerns with this


73

lack of consistency, so although it is good practice to address this, there are no examples where these

changes are being urgently requested.

2) To what extent is the timing and periodicity of the different sectorial planning and reporting

obligations in the EU energy field consistent?

The frequencies of planning and reporting obligations differ widely, ranging from weekly to once every

10 years. The most commonly applied frequencies are annual and every two years. Evaluations of

legislation are typically delivered only once. The reports that we have classified under the fully-

integrated energy market dimension of the Energy Union are delivered frequently, while the reports for

nuclear energy often have much longer intervals. This corresponds to the longer planning horizon and

slower rate of change in the nuclear sector. However, large differences in reporting frequency exist in

some of the reporting obligations we have classified under Energy Union dimensions with more

comparable planning horizons, such as energy efficiency and decarbonising the economy.

The messages were mixed regarding the planning obligations under the security of supply directives.

One interviewee noted that reporting once every two years was optimal, whereas another interviewee

commented on the same directive that reviews of the plans were too frequent It was suggested that the

period between reviews should be extended, with the option of requiring a more frequent review if

there was thought to be a relevant change in the security of the supply system of a particular MS.

As with the previous question, there are variations in the timing and periodicity of planning and

reporting. These appear to be either justified and accepted, or, in areas where concerns are raised,

there is a lack of consistency as to how the timing and periodicity should be changed. This leads us to

the conclusion that there are no major, urgent, concerns regarding periodicity and timing but that this

should be reviewed on an obligation by obligation basis, at the accepted review points.

3) Are the interactions among different planning and reporting obligations taken into account in the

respective EU legislation and in Commission's reports?

Several interviewees specifically mentioned the overlap in reporting obligations between different

pieces of legislation. Member States are sometimes required to report the same information to multiple

entities or under different legal bases, while different entities sometimes produce separate reports on

the same topic. Indeed, 41% of survey respondents indicated that they are required to report the same

data under more than one reporting obligation. To illustrate the issue, one interviewee had not heard

about a specific directive before the invitation to contribute to this study, although the administration

had been reporting the required information in the context of another regulation.

In some cases, the interlinkages between different reporting obligations are acknowledged in the

legislative acts themselves. For example, Article 7 of Regulation 1227/2011 on wholesale energy

markets integrity and transparency requires ACER to submit at least on an annual basis a report to the

Commission on its activities under the Regulation, but specifies that such reports may be combined

with ACER’s annual report on monitoring of the internal markets in electricity and natural gas required

under Directive 713/2009, Article 11(2).

In some areas, the Commission and other entities concerned have developed joint reporting templates

covering multiple obligations (e.g. for Member States’ reporting under the Renewable Energy Directive

2009/28/EC, for reporting by project promoters under Regulation 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-

European energy infrastructure). It therefore appears that some of the interactions between reporting


74

obligations are taken into account in the respective pieces of legislation but some are not. This suggests

that there are some opportunities to reduce or remove duplication.

The identified overlapping reporting requirements that could be streamlined are:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy:

For the annual progress reports under the EED (art. 24), the required statistics could be directly

sourced from Eurostat to the extent possible.

Energy efficiency reporting according to Energy Efficiency Directive art. 24 (1) and according to

art. 24 (2) (National Energy Efficiency Action Plans – NEEAP) duplicates certain information;

The planning obligation of article 10 of the EPBD could be incorporated in the NEAAP (EED). When

combining the planning obligations there may be some changes in who does what, but as a result,

the report would significantly improve and provide a broader perspective. It is not clear what the

report of article 10 under the EPBD is used for. The results of this reporting do not appear to be

utilised or publicized;

The Renewable Energy Directive has one reporting obligation (the progress report) which uses

some information from the energy efficiency area. The duplication in this process could be

streamlined;

Some questions in the progress reports required by the Renewable Energy Directive should be

more precisely defined, e.g. No. 6 and 9, in order to enhance the comparability of answers

between Member States;

Reporting on the obligations for the Energy Labelling Directive and the Regulation 765/2008 is

considered to overlap. This duplication could be streamlined in the Market Surveillance

Regulation.

Energy infrastructure:

Both ACER and the national regulatory authorities develop monitoring reports on electricity and

gas markets. National regulators also report to ACER. However, ACER carries out its own analyses

of the data provided by national regulators, while the national regulators have carried out similar

analyses themselves, so there is a certain degree of redundancy;

The electricity regulation includes a reporting obligation for ACER on electricity guidelines/codes

(congestion management, capacity allocation, etc.); a very similar obligation exists for ENTSO-E

starting in 2017 for reporting to ACER. However, it is unclear from whom ENTSO-E will acquire the

necessary data (regulators, TSOs etc.). This represents a potential redundancy because of double

reporting;

The obligation of Member states to report on investment projects in energy infrastructure within

the EU under Directive 256/2014 overlaps with obligations towards ENTSO-E and ENTSOG, and

countries reporting to these organisations are exempted from reporting to the Commission.

Therefore, the five biggest energy countries are not included in the Commission’s report.

Furthermore, the required data is also gathered through other institutions (such as PLATTS),

where Member States can easily obtain their data. This data is updated annually, so generally

provides more up to date than the reports produced under Directive 256/2014. Only the

requirement to report information on generation is specific to Directive 256/2014. Moreover, the

projects listed in the report are not binding; companies could plan to invest in a project and later

decide not to go through with it. For these reasons, the report obtained through Directive

256/2014 is not used to a large extent;


75

Reg. 714/2009 on cross-border exchanges in electricity, and Reg. 715/2009 on conditions for

access to the natural gas transmission networks include the obligation to report the Ten Year

Network Development Plan (TYNDP) to ACER. This is partly redundant because of overlap with the

Projects of Common Interest (PCI) reporting. In addition to this, PCI are legally binding, while the

TYNDP is non-binding, and represents a collection of national projects rather than a harmonised

planning. Therefore, according to interviewees, the PCI reporting is of high relevance, while the

TYNDP reporting is less so.

Integrated energy markets and energy security:

There is duplication in data requests, for example, the data on road oil consumption is requested

in at least four different questionnaires: 1) monthly and annual oil statistics; 2) oil bulletin; 3)

Fuel Quality Monitoring (information require in the FQD Directive) and; 4) UNFCCC inventory

reporting. Some streamlining here would be beneficial;

One MS NRA noted that they have to submit the same or similar data to the EC, ACER and CEER as

each one runs their own separate database. Furthermore, a concern was raised over possible

duplications in the reporting prepared by different stakeholders, including the NRA, ministries,

national statistics office. Reporting inefficiencies due to overlaps are also present for electricity

and gas companies who supply the same data twice or more times for different reports and

different stakeholders. This situation not only multiplies the efforts of both industry and the

national administration, but also increases the likelihood of generating inconsistent data because

data taken at very different times may lead to variations in the final figures;

A concrete recommendation that was made with respect to the directives concerning security of

supply was to include EC guidelines and suggestions on cross-border decision-making mechanisms

that will have to be applied in the future to coordinate the elaboration of national Emergency and

Preventive Action Plans.

A different type of bottleneck that hampers coherence relates more to data access issues. ACER has

reported problems with access to data, due to the lack of mandate for data collection from ENTSOs

(see Annex E). This data is especially critical in producing flagship reports on monitoring energy

markets.

4) Are the Member States' planning and reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis coherent with

planning and reporting obligations in other EU policy fields in particular EU climate policy?

The interviewed stakeholders did not provide any information concerning the coherence of obligations

contained in the EU energy acquis and obligations stemming from other policy fields. About 18% of

survey respondents considered that the planning and reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis make

a considerable contribution to better monitoring of progress towards climate targets, while 30%

indicated a moderate contribution and 14% a low contribution. Only 20% of respondents believed the

obligations made no contribution to the monitoring of climate targets, and 18% had no opinion on the

matter.

DG CLIMA has started a study that compares the reporting requirements, and the content of submitted

reports, between the reports required by the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR) (Regulation No

525/2013) and those required by the Energy Efficiency Directive and the Renewable Energy Directive.

The reporting required by the Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and by the

Regulation on Energy Statistics (No 1099/2008) (which implements the data requirements related to


76

energy statistics which form the basis of both GHG emissions reporting and energy reporting) are also

reviewed. The study contains no firm conclusions or recommendations at this stage. Early findings

related to coherence of energy and climate obligations show the following:

On process:

• The key deadline under the MMR is 15 March (starting in 2015 and every 2 years thereafter),

which is relatively consistent with the EED deadline of end of April. However the RED’s

biennial progress reports are submitted at the end of December (in 2015 as well), which leads

to incomparable information between the different reports;

• Progress reports on GHG mitigation are annual by a defined date, whereas the cycles of

evaluation reports under the EED and RED are less clear. The schedule of progress assessments

could be more streamlined;

• The MMR’s biennial reporting cycle is streamlined with the UNFCCC requirements. Therefore, a

non-biennial cycle would not work very well for climate reporting at EU level. Any streamlining

efforts between the climate and energy acquis should take this into account.

On content:

1. Overlaps and interlinkages:

• The annual energy indicators under MMR art. 7(1)(f) could be streamlined with the Eurostat

database. The obligation includes a considerable amount of information that can be gathered

from statistics;

• Several indicators reported under the MMR and NEEAPs show overlaps. At the same time, the

reported figures are not very consistent. This could be explained by the different

methodologies that underlie these figures;

• MMR art. 13(c-d) deals with reporting on policies and measures (PAMs) which limit or reduce

GHG emissions. There are obligations in the RED and EED that require reporting on promotion

of renewable energy sources and energy savings, which directly link to this.

2. Differences and deviations:

• There are deviations in terms or the very specific definitions used in the RED, which hamper

the comparability and consistency of data between the climate change reporting and energy

reporting;

• There is also streamlining potential between indicators that are reported under the RED and

MMR (on biomass data and annual GHG inventories), which could be taken from the Eurostat

SHARES tool.57 The current requirements and reporting formats for biomass have some key

differences that hinder comparability of a large part of the reported data;

• Energy reporting does not include a distinction between emissions under the EU ETS Directive

and emissions covered by the Effort Sharing Decision, which is important for EU climate

legislation. Any streamlining efforts between the climate and energy acquis should take these

subcategories into account;

• The RED uses a sectoral structure (disaggregation between electricity, heating/cooling and

transport) which the MMR reporting does not use. Applying this in the MMR can improve

comparability and streamline the reporting for MSs.

57 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/shares.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/shares


77

5) Are there national practices that integrate separate planning and reporting obligations and if so,

what kind of integrated obligations are in place, if any?

49% of survey respondents indicated that such practices did not occur in their country, while 20%

reported that such practices existed. Furthermore, 31% of survey respondents do not know whether

such practices occurred. The Member State officials interviewed were not aware of any national

practices that integrate separate planning and reporting obligations.

Figure 5-7 National practices that integrated separate planning and reporting obligations

The planning and reporting obligations are generally derived from different legal acts and cover

different topics, and are therefore dealt with by different ministries. The responsible entities within

the MS vary between MSs: in some MSs all energy directives are under the responsibility of the same

ministry or agency; in other MSs they are spread across different ministries, even for the same

legislation. In countries where there is a wide division of reporting responsibilities, streamlining is more

difficult to coordinate. Gaining synergies from combining content is therefore difficult, although the

survey shows it is possible to integrate planning and reporting obligations.

This conclusion matches with the conclusion we have drawn regarding the importance of the relative

maturity of the policy area within each Member State. In those Member States which have developed

policy in advance, or at least in parallel with European level policy, it is likely that the reporting and

planning obligations from the Member State policy are a good match with those of the European policy.

6) Coherence between national and EU obligations

Overall, 34% of the survey respondents think that there is no redundancy between EU legislation and

national obligations. 48% consider that less than half of the obligations are redundant between the EU

and national level, while 18% believe that more than half of the obligations are redundant.

There is some evidence that transposition of EC directives takes into account national policies. In one

MS (at least within the security of supply field) the administration reported that they try to consider

existing national measures and integrate them into the transposition of the directives. In the case of

reporting on markets and the authorisation, they saw clear convergence between national and EU law.

One interviewee pointed out that smart transposition is key to simplification.


78

As with the last question the conclusion that we can draw here is in line with our earlier conclusions on

the importance of the relative maturity of the policy area in the Member State in question. Where the

Member State already had policy in line with the European level policy, or developed it in parallel,

policy coherence should be high. Where no such policy, or policy that had major differences, existed

prior to the EU policy the transposition process is of key importance.

Coherence conclusions

There are some inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the current obligations. There is some evidence of

a lack of coherence in the frequency of reporting obligations, concerning the content of some specific

reporting obligations and in the deadlines for the submission of reports on related issues. The reports by

Member States that serve as input to the reports by the Commission to the European Parliament are

generally coherent as regards their reporting frequency. The current obligations present some overlaps,

with Member States reporting the same information to multiple entities or under different legal bases,

and different entities sometimes producing separate reports on the same topic. This suggests that there

are some opportunities to improve coherence. There is also room for improvement in the coherence

between obligations in the fields of energy and climate change.

Stakeholders’ views regarding the coherence between national and EU-level obligations vary; 34% of

survey respondents believe that there is no redundancy between EU legislation and national obligations,

but 18% believe that more than half of the obligations are redundant.

Overall, our analysis suggests that there is scope to improve coherence in terms of:

• Aligning the frequency of reporting obligations on similar or related topics;


indicators);




Relevance 5.4

1) To what extent are the current Member States' and Commission's planning and reporting obligations

in the EU energy acquis still relevant?

Opinions on the relevance, suitability and usefulness of reporting obligations vary. Almost all Member

State interviewees questioned the relevance of certain obligations, but did not provide specific details

of what their concerns where, and it is likely that some of these concerns relate to the pieces of

legislation in general, rather than the specific reporting and planning obligations which are the subject

of this work. The interviewees support efforts to evaluate the entire set of Member State reporting

obligations, including obligations towards the European Commission, EUROSTAT, ACER and ENTSO-

E/ENTSOG58, in order to identify the relevant, effective, and useful obligations, and to identify the

potential for reducing, streamlining, simplifying, and eliminating certain obligations.

One interviewee believed that there may not be a large number of redundant obligations, but that a

number of obligations are very similar or touch on closely related aspects, while being formally

separate.

58 Some interviewees also mentioned national reporting obligations towards OECD/IEA.


79

In general, Member States consider the content of the current planning and reporting obligations to be

relevant. Some interviewees noted that the reporting requirements mainly address issues of relevance

to national policy-making. Several interviewees were of the opinion that preparing plans and reports, as

well as making them available among Member States, helps Member States in benchmarking themselves

against other Member States, and allows them to see what other Member States are doing, which

potentially enables mutual learning.

An example of an irrelevant obligation mentioned in the interviews with Member States is reporting

under Article 2 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) 2964/95, which is already under the scope of Council

Decision 1999/280 and Eurostat also collects similar data.

Most of the Commission respondents considered the reporting obligations dealt with by their unit

relevant. However, certain obligations were deemed obsolete. For instance, one respondent considered

the obligation for the Commission to report on the sustainability of biofuels (Directive 2009/28/EC,

Article 17.7) redundant, as it no longer corresponds to the current trends observed in the biofuels

industry. The obligation for Member States to report on the other measures and financial instruments

applied to promote the objectives of Directive 2010/31/EU (Art. 10) was considered unnecessary since

this is reported by most Member States within the NEEAPs. Article 22(3) of Regulation 1316/2013

establishing the Connecting Europe Facility requires Member States to inform the Commission annually

about progress made in implementing projects of common interest and investments made. However,

since the provision is not relevant for investments in CEF Energy infrastructure, DG Energy does not

require Member States to report this and will provide an interpretative note to this effect later this

year.

The views of survey respondents concerning the extent to which current obligations are still up to date

vary (see Section 4.6.4). Only four obligations were perceived as being ‘not at all up-to-date’ by some

respondents. These were art. 14(1) and 24(6) of the Energy Efficiency Directive and art. 4 and 22 of the

Renewable Energy Directive. These responses are not conclusive however, since other respondents

address these obligations as ‘to a great extent’ or ‘somewhat’ up to date. Overall, for most obligations,

the majority of respondents indicated that the obligations were at least ‘somewhat up-to-date’.

It’s important to separate the relevance of the reporting and planning obligations from the relevance of

each part of the energy acquis. As demonstrated by earlier questions, our analysis of the rationale for

each of the planning and reporting obligations and our review of the economic theory of having

reporting and planning as part of a policy, having reporting and planning obligations is justified and the

obligations that we have reviewed are generally fit for the purpose they are intended for.

2) Will the current planning and reporting obligations still be relevant for the new objectives set out

in the Energy Union strategy such as full implementation of the energy acquis?

Our desk top review of the rationales for the planning and reporting obligations in each piece of

legislation included a process of allocating each piece of legislation to one of the Energy union

objectives, virtually all of them were relatively easy to allocate, with the exception of the nuclear

energy related obligations. These could be classified under ‘energy security, solidarity and trust’, in

that they partly relate to public confidence in the safety of nuclear energy. They could also be

allocated to security of supply in that they also contribute to proper monitoring of nuclear facilities

which should help improve their availability.


80

Our desk top review also included a review of the purpose of the planning and reporting obligations,

each of these rationales appears a good fit with the rationale for the Energy Union.

3) How well are the current Member States' and Commission's planning and reporting obligations

adapted to developments in the fields of digital technologies and processes of collecting, organising

and analysing large sets of data (big data analytics)?

Some of the data collection related to planning and reporting obligations currently takes places via

electronic systems. For some obligations, the Commission has developed electronic templates to be

used by the parties responsible for reporting (such as the electronic system EMOS used for reporting

under Regulation 2964/95/EC and Council Decision 1999/280).

Out of the 110 survey respondents, 18 reported using the CIRCA database, 4 the NIF database and 3 the

EEA electronic reporting system.

Several interviewees gave examples of the use of digital technologies in national reporting. For

example, electronic systems are used in some Member States for data acquisition (e.g. from grid

operators) and for reporting at national and EU level.

On the other hand, a number of interviewees underscored that not all obligations lend themselves to

electronic reporting. For example, electronic templates which limit the space available for responses

that require a large amount of text to be reported (e.g. the NEEAPs or parts of the annual progress

reports under the EED).

‘Big data’ analysis implies the use of very large data sets, for example meter by meter, or very local

area meter sub totals, for electricity and gas consumption. It does not appear that any of the data sets

are collected at this resolution, even though some Member States do have this data. We can therefore

conclude that this level of ‘big data’ analysis will not be possible with the current data requests.

Relevance conclusions

Stakeholders’ views on the relevance, suitability and usefulness of reporting obligations vary. While

most obligations are deemed relevant (and the data derived from them is considered useful) by most

national and EU-level respondents, the interviewees also highlighted some irrelevant obligations.

The survey responses indicate that there is scope to bring some of the obligations up to date.

As regards the extent to which the current obligations are adapted to developments in big data

analytics, the survey and interviews show that digital technologies are in some cases used for data

collection, but we do not have information on the use of such technologies for the analysis of the data

gathered through reporting.

EU added value 5.5

1) To what extent do the current Member States' and Commission's planning and reporting obligations

in the EU energy acquis contribute to the coordination of energy policies at EU level?

The interviews with DG Energy officials confirmed that Members States’ reporting generally provides

the Commission with information that is not available from other sources and allows the Commission to

monitor implementation. There was also a strong recognition of the importance of reporting in

evidence-based policy-making on the part of ACER and Eurostat. It was also recognised that there is


81

scope for removing some redundant and overlapping reporting requirements (see section 5.3 on

Coherence).

When this question was put to Member State interviewees many were of the opinion that the reporting

was not contributing to the alignment of approaches or improvement of cooperation between Member

States, but that it does help the functioning of the national market. However, interviewees from Latvia

and Spain, commenting on the qualitative planning obligations under security of supply, were of the

opinion that EC reporting obligations are improving the cooperation between MSs. One interviewee

pointed out that in order to ensure security of supply, it is vital to integrate MS perspectives as without

coordination crisis measures would not work. Other interviewees also pointed out that the plans

prepared by MSs are also helpful in talks with the neighbouring countries when searching for solutions

which are accepted by both states. At the regional level these plans can serve as good practice

examples, which can help other countries think about their security of supply situation in different

ways. It is an obligation under Regulation 994/2010 to exchange the national plans with neighbouring

countries; therefore it can be said that this contributes to improved awareness and coherence which

implies improved coordination and EU added value.

The collation of EU level data which is enabled by the reporting obligations, and would not currently

exist without them, clearly helps with the coordination of EU energy policy, as the data provides the

means of monitoring EU level progress. Still, getting an overview of all obligations in the energy acquis

and their detailed requirements is a challenge. The variety of obligations create an obscure overall

picture of who is reporting to whom, what is the level of reporting (national vs. EU), what is being

reported on and when it is done.

2) To what extent do the current planning and reporting obligations contribute to the integration of

national energy systems and to Member State's cooperation at the EU level?

Interviewees have different views on whether current planning and reporting obligations contribute to

the improved alignment of national energy systems and to Member States’ cooperation at the EU level.

Some do not see any contribution, or even see negative consequences as (sometimes large) differences

between Member States become obvious, which may not please those Member States which are ranked

lower. However, other Member State interviewees assumed supporting effects. For example, the

national renewable energy plans which are prepared for all 28 Member States, facilitate exchange, and

cooperation, because of enhanced transparency and the opportunity for those Member States who wish

to improve their performance to learn from the good practice of those Member States which are most

successful. A third opinion of relevance to this question is that the comparability of national data and

analyses is limited due to a lack of harmonisation in data standards.

The view from Member State interviews can be summarised as being that the current planning and

reporting system does not generally support integration or improved cooperation as the implementation

of energy policy can be somewhat scattered between different ministries. However, in some cases,

where multiple ministries are required to provide information for one report, the reporting

requirements have proved to be successful in improving integration between these ministries, but the

benefits are limited.


82

The Commission interviewees found it difficult to assess whether the reporting obligations allow

Member States to learn from each other. Member State interviewees mentioned this as a potential

benefit, but did not provide any specific examples of it occurring.

The survey contained a question on the extent to which the reporting obligations had contributed to

better integration of national energy systems with those of other countries and better cooperation of

Member States at EU level. Of those that responded to this question only 47% thought that the

contribution was positive. The response was even lower than this for those reporting obligations related

to energy efficiency, this may be related to the ongoing debate about the need for stricter targets on

energy efficiency. The contribution to alignment of approaches varies between policy areas, with a

more positive contribution in those areas where there are relatively coherent plans and data standards

but less so where the differences are larger and arguably more ingrained.

The integration of national energy systems is a politically sensitive topic and it is important to consider

exactly what is meant by this in the context of planning and reporting. We have interpreted this as

enabling the easy comparison and collation of EU data and not the precise alignment of policies in each

MS. Although there are sound reasons for energy policies in Member States to share common objectives,

and in many cases the detailed implementation of these policies can be very similar (and MSs can learn

from each other on this) we do not believe that it is the Commission’s intention for each MS to have

identical policies. It is much more sensible, and in line with European policy norms, for Member State

policy to reflect a combination of EU and their own objectives, with detailed implementation reflecting

the national situation and typical approaches that may be common between Member States.

With regards to the comparability of energy data between MSs, we have not seen any evidence in this,

or other, work of any major discrepancies that would cause misleading conclusions to be drawn. It is

apparent that DG Energy and Eurostat make significant efforts to define data requirements and to

check that the data submitted is of the correct order of magnitude.

3) To what extent do existing Member States’ and Commission's planning and reporting obligations in

the EU energy acquis contribute to the transparency of energy policies, public and private energy

related investment and spending in Member States?

The survey contained two questions on this issue. The first question asked if the reporting obligations

had contributed to the transparency of energy policy in Member States (e.g. wider availability of data).

Some 81% of those who responded to this question thought the contribution was positive. The second

question asked if the reporting obligations had contributed to the transparency of public and private

energy investment and spending. The view here was less encouraging with only 53% of those that

answered responding that the contribution was positive. This less positive view on expenditure

transparency could be related to the fact that there is relatively little data collated on direct energy

industry (as opposed to consumer) expenditure. The survey responses from the Commission on this point

were very similar with 5 of the 5 respondents stating a positive contribution from reporting to

transparency on MS energy policy, but only 1 ranking the contribution as positive on improving the

transparency of expenditure.

The interview results show some positive views on the role of the reporting obligations in improving

transparency, particularly in the energy markets and security area, where unique and useful

information is collated. The monthly reports produced under Regulation 2964/95/EC and Council


83

Decision 1999/280 are not only used by the Commission, but also by external parties such as the

European Central Bank, petroleum companies, private entrepreneurs, employees of public

administrations and business organisations such as Chambers of Commerce. The Weekly Oil Bulletin, an

obligation stemming from Council Decision 1999/280, is also of interest to consultants, researchers,

press officers and other stakeholders. There were also some positive views given with regard to the

transparency benefits of mandatory and consistent reporting on progress towards renewable energy

targets. However, in some areas, e.g. nuclear and energy efficiency, some Member States have the

opinion that although the information may be useful some of it is duplicating what is already provided

to others.

EU added value conclusions


Member States’ energy policy are not consensual. The interviews with DG Energy officials confirmed

that Members States’ reporting generally provides the Commission with information that is not available

from other sources and allows the Commission to monitor implementation. There was also a strong

recognition of the importance of reporting in evidence-based policy-making on the part of ACER and

Eurostat. It was also recognised that there is scope for removing some redundant and overlapping

reporting requirements. This positive view supports the fact that if the Commission did not collect and

collate the information from each Member State no other body would do this, so there would be no EU

level data with which to track progress towards EU level objectives.

There were mixed opinions amongst Member States on the contribution of reporting to the alignment of

approaches, some feel that the data does show the differences, which can then be addressed. It

appears that the contribution varies between policy areas, with a more positive contribution in those

areas where there are relatively coherent plans and data standards (e.g. renewable energy) but less so

where the differences are larger and arguably more ingrained. There are also mixed views on the

success of reporting in improving coherence within Member States. It appears that there are examples

of cross ministry working being facilitated through the need for joint reporting, but the benefits are

limited.

There is agreement in principle with the suggestion that Member States can learn from each other via

the reported data, but there are no obvious examples of this, and the opinions collected indicate some

scepticism over whether it ever actually occurs.

Our conclusion on the contribution of reporting and planning to EU added value needs to involve a

consideration of what the purpose of having EU level energy policy is. If, as we assume, the purpose is

to align the objectives (all though all Member States share some version of the three main objectives –

security, sustainability and affordability) with the Member States largely free to decide the details of

how these objectives are achieved, then the EU added value of reporting is largely related to the

collection and collation of individual MS data to get EU level data that enables EU level progress to be

assessed. The collation of EU level data, and information on policies and measures, does enable MSs to

learn from each other, but it is hard to prove causality in the design of individual MS policies.

There appears to be a high level of belief in the contribution of reporting to improving the transparency

of energy policy across Member States (particularly on energy markets, renewable energy and energy

security), but much less confidence in the current ability of reporting to improve transparency on


84

energy expenditure. It appears plausible to suggest that the latter conclusion relates to a lack of

structured data collection on this issue.

Evaluation against the five Better Regulation criteria for each obligation 5.6

Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 provide detailed information on the evaluation for each obligation, against the

five better regulation criteria (efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value).

Each criterion has been given an assessment of “high”, “medium” or “low”, based on the findings from

our desk research, survey results, interviews and own analysis. If there are streamlining opportunities

between the obligations, these are mentioned in the next column. Finally, in Table 5-2 it gives a

recommendation for each of the obligations, whether they should be integrated into the National

Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), kept separate (i.e. stay in current legal act) or repealed (without any

part being integrated into the NECP). In Table 5-3 it does the same for an overall Plan for the

obligations by the Commission. The findings feed directly into Part B: Impact Assessment. The

justifications are given in the text below each obligation.


85

Table 5-2: Evaluation against the five Better Regulation criteria of each planning and reporting obligation for Member States Le

gal b

asis

Name / description of the legal basis

Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP

Streamlining opportunities

Dire

ctiv

e 20

09/2

8/EC


4 + Annex VI

National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) Knowledge sharing and intelligence as intervention logic, which are achieved according to the survey, so the effectiveness is considered high. The coherence is considered high, even though the timing and frequency is not coherent with the NEEAP, nearly zero-energy buildings’ planning obligation and the cost-optimality obligation. The relevance is considered high because it provides a good basis for the monitoring of progress towards the 2020 targets. The EU added value is also considered high, since it contributed to better transparency, but because the plan is one-off, the information can become outdated, causing the added value to decrease (this is corroborated by the evaluation by CE Delft). Integration with the other three planning obligations will improve coherence and reduce the administrative burden. We recommend to increase the frequency to annual.

H H H H H

Inte

grat

e

22 Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources The intervention logics are compliance checking, progress checking and knowledge sharing. These are achieved, so the effectiveness is high. Some questions in the progress reports should be more precisely defined, e.g. No. 6 and 9, in order to enhance the comparability of answers between Member States. The report uses some information from the energy efficiency area. The duplication in this process could be streamlined. Coherence is considered high, in spite of some incoherence with Eurostat; the commission has already worked on improving the alignment. The relevance and added value are also high, because the amount of available data would not have been achieved without this obligation and the measures and results would not have been this well understood (Evaluation CE Delft).

H H H H H

Inte

grat

e

Streamline with Eurostat

Dire

ctiv

e 20

10/3

0/EU

Energy Labelling Directive

3(3) Enforcement activities and level of compliance There is a significant overlap with Market Surveillance Regulation 765/2008, therefore the coherence is assessed as low, even though the survey responses are more positive on this account. The costs are medium and the benefits high, because it ensures compliance. The costs could be lower if the MS knew beforehand what specific indicators need to be reported on (this could for instance be done with a template).

H M L M M

repe

al

Streamline with Market Surveillance Regulation 765/2008

Dire

ctiv

e 20

10/3

1/EU

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

9.1 Planning requirement on minimum energy performance requirements Recommend to combine the obligations under the EPBD and EED in one "NEEAP plus" obligation. This obligation should be a simplified version of the current NEEAP and mainly focus on figures. The frequency should be made annual to increase effectiveness of Energy Efficiency policy.

H H H H M

inte

gra

te

Should be integrated in NEEAPs

10(2) List of existing measures and instruments, including financial Not considered very useful by EC; less powerful than long term renovation strategy therefore low added value. MSs suggest to merge with NEEAPs (into "NEEAP plus"). When combining the planning obligations there may be some changes in who does what, but as a result, the report would significantly improve and provide a broader perspective. It is not clear what the report of article 10 under the EPBD is used for. The results of this reporting do not appear to be utilised or publicised. Should at least be integrated with EED art 7/14; a stronger role for financial aspects is desired.

H H H M L

inte

grat

e



86

Lega

l bas

is Name /

description of the legal basis

Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


5(2) Report all input data and assumptions used for cost-optimal calculations and their results This obligation is quite useful according the EC and MS, and is also used by MS. Should be integrated in "NEEAP plus"

M H H H H

inte

grat

e


Dire

ctiv

e 20

12/2

7/EU


3, 24(2), Annex XIV

NEEAPs The reports are not easily comparable and too long on a specific subject. We recommend to combine the obligations under the EPBD and EED in one "NEEAP plus" obligation. This obligation should be a simplified version of the current NEEAP and mainly focus on figures. The frequency should be made annual to increase effectiveness of Energy Efficiency policy. The progress report under art 24(1) should be integrated in the NEEAP plus as well so as to remove duplications with the NEEAP.

M H H M H

inte

grat

e

4 Long-term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock Compared to article 10.2 of the EPBD, this obligation is regarded more useful; the effectiveness is high and the added value medium. This obligation can also be integrated into the NEEAPs (to create a "NEEAP plus")

M H M L M

inte

grat

e


14(1), 24, Annex VIII

Potential of cogeneration and district heating and cooling This obligation not very efficient nor effective. The coherence is low because there is an overlap with Eurostat. Still it should not be abolished completely, because it is very useful for EC (interviews). It should be streamlined with Eurostat and integrated in the "NEAAP plus”

L L L M H

inte

gra

te


7, 24(1), Annex XIV

Progress report There is some overlap with Eurostat identified, which should be streamlined (Too time-consuming). Eurostat could then provide data for NECP. It should first and foremost be integrated in a "NEEAP plus", so that certain duplications with the current NEEAP can be removed.

M H M H M

inte

grat

e


24(6) Statistics on national electricity and heat production from high and low efficiency cogeneration This obligation concerns statistics and belongs with Eurostat. Streamline with Eurostat and integrate with "NEEAP plus"

L H M L

inte

grat

e


Dire

ctiv

e 20

09/1

19/E

C

Directive imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or

6 Annual summary copy of the stock register There is medium cost of reporting (as MS mostly have established lean processes of collecting this data) and medium benefit, hence efficiency is medium. Effectiveness is assessed as high as the objectives are mostly met. Coherence is medium as various indicators used are also collected for other sources, e.g. Eurostat, and this is not coordinated. Relevance is high to medium as obligation is needed and feeds into other reports, yet reporting is still done via predefined Excel files and not very well adapted to digital technologies. EU added value is medium as it contributes to coordination of EU energy policy, but there are some concerns of the lack of transparency and trust among MS that reported information corresponds to actual levels of stocks.

M H M H M

Inte

grat

e



87

Lega

l bas

is Name /


Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


petroleum products

9(4) and (5)

9(4): Notice specifying the level of specific stocks, or 9(5): annual report analysing the measures taken to ensure and verify the availability and physical accessibility of its emergency stocks The obligation is a bit redundant, as a lot of information is already provided under art 6. Nearly all MS have chosen 9(5) over 9(4): the benefit of having specific stocks is not very clear to MS, and having specific stocks imposes additional obligations (e.g. art 9(3) and art 10). The objective is to ensure that MS have means of quickly dealing with an emergency situation by deploying products to the market, but the reports under 9(5) are very general and do not require much detail. Therefore the benefits are low and the effectiveness is low. The higher indirect costs of choosing 9(4) over 9(5) actually disincentivizes MS to have specific stocks. The benefits of specific stocks should be made clearer to the MS and the obligation should be repealed or integrated in art 6.

H L M H H

repe

al

12 Monthly statistical summaries of emergency stocks The cost of updating emergency stock information is medium or low (as MS should already have this info at hand) and benefits are high to medium as it allows to follow emergency stock dynamics in EU. Efficiency hence is high. Effectiveness is also quite high as objectives are mostly met. Coherence, relevance and EU value added are also somewhat high. IEA does not make difference between emergency stocks and commercial stocks. Therefore the EU added value is high

H H H H H

sepa

rate

Is already streamlined with Eurostat and IEA (some room for improvement in streamlining with IEA)

13 Monthly statistical summaries of specific stocks The cost of updating specific stock information is high (although no qualitative info on that can support the issue why), benefits are high to medium; hence efficiency is medium. Coherence and relevance and EU value added as with monthly statistics on emergency stocks is somewhat high. Effectiveness is medium, because of the frequency: this could be changed to annual instead of monthly.

M M H M H

sepa

rate

14 Monthly statistical summaries of commercial stocks The cost of updating commercial stock information is usually high in the first years, but over time the routines of gathering information from companies become established and the cost is medium. The benefits are considered rather high (only transparency issues are questioned); hence efficiency is high. The reporting is facilitated by a questionnaire. Also effectiveness and coherence is high, as with the other two monthly reporting obligations. Relevance and EU value added is slightly less for EU energy policy than for other monthly reporting obligations, hence evaluated as medium. IEA does not make difference between emergency stocks and commercial stocks. Therefore the EU added value is high

H H H M M

sepa

rate

Dire

ctiv

e 20

13/3

0/EU


25(1), Annex IX point 3

Annual report on oil and gas installations and their safety This obligation is considered very effective, because it serves all intervention logics. The coherence is also high because the topic is quite specific and no overlap has been detected. Compliance checking and better transparency and data are considered important to prevent any new accidents (like the recent Deepwater Horizon accident), so the relevance is high. The risks of accidents have decreased according to a report by Deloitte, therefore the added value of this obligation is high.

H H H H H

sepa

rate


88

Lega

l bas

is Name /


Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


Regu

lati

on

2964

/95/

EC


2, 7 Report at regular intervals on the conditions under which the oil imports or deliveries have taken place Survey reports high cost for reporting and benefits are assessed as medium, hence the overall efficiency is medium. The objectives have been mostly met, hence effectiveness is high. Coherence is medium as MS have to submit similar data to Eurostat. This reporting obligation is not considered to contribute to significant policy improvements; relevance and EU value added is low. The reported indicators should be streamlined with those MS report to Eurostat and obligation should be integrated in NECP.

M H M L L

inte

grat

e

Partial overlap of one indicator that is also reported to Eurostat

Regu

lati

on 9

94/2

010


5 Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans Reporting and planning includes high cost, but also the benefit is high, hence the overall efficiency is medium. Most of this qualitative information is not available from other sources, hence effectiveness in high. Coherence is medium as the timing periods and scope of the reporting could be more streamlined. Relevance is still very high. Yet the expected EU value added can be achieved only via more cross-border coordination. The directive is currently under review to put more emphasis on regional collaboration, hence this shortcoming is being addressed. Findings from the public consultation in 2015 state: "There is no clear view on the probable merging of the risk assessment and the plans. Various constellations are mentioned in the answers, namely merging all three documents in one, merging risk assessment with the preventive action plan as well as merging the preventive action plan with the emergency plan. Only few respondents who are favouring the introduction of regional plans are of the opinion that regional plans could replace the national plans." This qualitative planning obligation should stay separate from NECPs.

M H M H M

sepa

rate

9 Risk assessment Reporting and planning includes high cost, but also the benefit is high, hence the overall efficiency is medium. Most of this qualitative information is not available from other sources, hence effectiveness in high. Coherence is medium as the timing periods and scope of reporting could be more streamlined. Relevance is still very high. Yet the expected EU value added can be achieved only via more cross-border coordination. The directive is currently under review to put more emphasis on regional collaboration, hence this shortcoming is being addressed. Findings from the public consultation in 2015 states: "There is no clear view on the probable merging of the risk assessment and the plans. Various constellations are mentioned in the answers, namely merging all three documents in one, merging risk assessment with the preventive action plan as well as merging the preventive action plan with the emergency plan. Only few respondents who are favouring the introduction of regional plans are of the opinion that regional plans could replace the national plans." This qualitative planning obligation should stay separate from NECPs.

M H M H M

sepa

rate

Coun

cil D

ecis

ion

1999

/280

"REMIT" Council Decision of 22 April 1999 regarding a Community procedure for information and

3.1 MS shall communicate to the COM: a) crude oil supply cost cif, b) the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of all taxes in force This is relevant basic statistical data that is gathered under this reporting. The same data is being provided for 2964/95/EC and Eurostat also collects similar data just applying different criteria. It leads to a situation when MS have to report the same data but in various periods and with diverging criteria. This should be made more coherent.

M H L H H

Inte

grat

e



89

Lega

l bas

is Name /


Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


consultation on crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of petroleum products

3.2 MS shall communicate to the COM: Consumer prices of petroleum products; net of duties and taxes in force Medium costs are involved in gathering this data and benefits are also medium. This is basic statistical data necessary or Oil Bulletin publication. Issue is whether it is EC to which this statistical data should be reported.

M M H L M

inte

grat

e


Dire

ctiv

e 20

05/8

9/EC


7 (1-4)

Report on overall adequacy of the electricity system to supply current and projected demands for electricity Notable overlaps with other reporting obligations including to ACER, while of high relevance and efficiency; therefore integration of streamlined obligation seems adequate

H H M H L

inte

grat

e

Dire

ctiv

e 20

08/9

2/EC


1 Summary report on the operation of this Directive 2013 study suggested to abolish the Annual report on Dir 2008/92, Art 8. The main obligation of this Directive is the systematic reporting on electricity and gas prices (prescribed in Annex I and II). It has a clear system for reporting including templates to be submitted to Eurostat, which is easy to monitor without preparing a special report. Thus repealing this obligation will avoid unnecessary burden associated with it.

M M L M L

repe

al

Annex I

Annex I: Gas prices reports The obligation is straightforward, has a small cost and achieves rather good benefits considering the low cost for collecting data. Publishing it via Eurostat ensures the transparency and a wider access to data. One can see a clear EU value added related to organisation of a systematic information collection, provision of templates that ensures clarity in the reporting process. It is recommended that the obligation be maintained and kept separate from NECP.

M - H

M M H H

inte

grat

e

Data is already collected at the level of Eurostat

Annex II

Annex II: Electricity prices report The obligation is straightforward, has a small cost and achieves rather good benefits considering the low cost for collecting data. Publishing it via Eurostat ensures the transparency and a wider access to data. One can see a clear EU value added related to organisation of a systematic information collection, provision of templates that ensures clarity in the reporting process. It is recommended that the obligation be maintained and kept separate from NECP.

M - H

M M H H

inte

grat

e


90

Lega

l bas

is Name /


Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


Dire

ctiv

e 20

09/7

2/EC


37(1) (e)

National Regulatory Authority annual report This report is prepared by the NRA, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. In addition, NRA is a primary collector of a wide range of the original data on electricity and gas, therefore the MS government should rely more on NRA in supplying data, rather than collecting data independently. Furthermore, overlaps were reported in survey with NEEAP and RED progress report (no further explanations and indication on specific data is provided). However, the analysis showed that the overlap is minimal and includes only selected indicators. The overall content of NEEAP, RED reports and the Annual report of NRA does not repeat and the integration among these reports is not feasible due to diverse overall thematic focus of these reports. Overall EC recognises the importance of these reports. Flexibility with the template works well, allowing the NRA to have it both as one of the flagship publications with the average reader's orientation, and at the same time serve as an official delivery for the EC. Preparation of the report has relatively high cost, while it achieves medium-high level benefits due to its relevant information provision and reported usefulness for policy making. Achieving transparency and data provision is not seen as the strength of the report, however examination of the reports seems to show a rather large amount of information presented. ACER uses these reports as a complement to the data it receives via questionnaires and Eurostat in producing the EU level analysis. Note that this is a common report also for the Directive 2009/73, Art 41(1)e, since the report covers both the electricity and the gas markets.

M H H H L

sepa

rate

4 Monitoring of security of supply by NRA The obligation is under responsibility of NRA, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. Furthermore the obligation is duplicative with the 37(1)e " National Regulatory Authority annual report" of the same Directive. Therefore it is suggested that the obligation seeks integration with 37(1)e. The obligation is reported to have moderate benefits, but also not very high financial burden. While its effectiveness, relevance, coherence are positively valued, it is particularly seen as having low EU added value.

M M H H L

sepa

rate

merge with art 37(1)e Dir 2009/72/EC

Dire

ctiv

e 20

09/7

3/EC


41(1) e

NRA annual report This report is prepared by the NRA, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. In addition, NRA is a primary collector of a wide range of the original data on electricity and gas, therefore the MS government should rely more on NRA in supplying data, rather than collecting data independently. Furthermore, overlaps were reported in survey with NEEAP and RED progress report (no further explanations or indication on specific data is provided). Overall EC recognises the importance of these reports. Flexibility with the template works well, allowing the NRA to have it both as one of the flagship publications with the average reader's orientation, and at the same time serve as an official delivery for the EC. The report is perceived to be useful for policy making. Data provision by these report is seen as useful, but the granularity of data does not provide desired transparency. Cost of the report production is seen as rather high (by MS). ACER uses these reports as a complement to the data it receives via questionnaires and Eurostat in producing the EU level analysis. Note that this is a common report also for the Directive 2009/72, Art 37(1)e, since the report covers both the electricity and the gas markets.

M H M H L

sepa

rate


91

Lega

l bas

is Name /


Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


5 Monitoring of security of gas supply by NRA The obligation is under responsibility of NRA, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. Furthermore, the obligation is duplicative with the 41(1)e " National Regulatory Authority annual report" of the same Directive. Therefore it is suggested that the obligation seeks integration with 37(1)e. The obligation reported to have high benefits, and relatively moderate financial burden. While its effectiveness, relevance, coherence are positively valued, the EU added value is seen to be modest.

H H H H M

sepa

rate

merge with Art 41(1)e Dir 2009/73/EC

Dire

ctiv

e 94

/22/

EC


9 Annual report on prospecting, exploration and production This obligation aims to increase compliance and public confidence. The effectiveness is medium because compliance checking is not considered achieved by all respondents. The coherence is high because this is the only obligations of its kind. It is considered not relevant, in spite of the survey, because no summary Commission report has been created since 1998. Whether this obligation actually increased compliance or public confidence is unknown.

H M H L

repe

al

Reg.

(EU

) N

o 13

16/2

013


22 Report on progress and investments made in projects of common interest Notable overlaps with other reporting obligations, while of high overall benefits; therefore integration of streamlined obligation seems adequate

H H M H H

inte

grat

e

Regu

lati

on N

o 25

6/20

14


3 and 5

Reporting on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union Notable overlaps with other reporting obligations including to ENTSO-E/-G, while of high efficiency and EU added value, however at medium relevance; therefore integration of streamlined obligation seems adequate

H M H M H

inte

grat

e

Streamline with ENTSO-E, ENTSOG

Coun

cil D

irec

tive

20

06/1

17/E

urat

om


16(1c) Inform the Commission and the Advisory Committee on a yearly basis on shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries that, in the opinion of the competent authorities of the MS of origin, meet the exports requirements Transparency is the most important intervention logic here. This is considered a highly positive benefit of the obligation, so the effectiveness is high. Coherence is considered medium because of overlaps with the IAEA, though survey ranks it high. Relevance is considered medium due to the interview with the Commission. Also the added value is ranked medium, because the commission would not be as well informed without this obligation. Due to overlap with the IAEA it is not ranked high.

H H M M M

Sepa

rate

streamline with IAEA


92

Lega

l bas

is Name /


Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


20(1) Report on implementation of the directive The intervention logic of compliance is achieved, therefore the effectiveness is considered high. Like all nuclear obligation, the coherence is medium due to overlap with the IEAE. The relevance is medium because relevance was expressed in the interview with the Commission. The added value is low following the survey and because of the overlap with the IAEA, which also aims to check compliance.

H H M M L

Sepa

rate


Coun

cil D

irec

tive

200

9/71

/Eur

atom


8e Self-assessment and international peer review The three obligations for Directive 2009/71 need a revision of the guidelines to increase coherence, which is now medium. They also show overlap with the IAEA. The relevance is considered high as expressed by the survey and the added value is regarded as medium because of the overlap with the safety convention of the IAEA.

H H M H M

Sepa

rate


8e Topical peer review The three obligations for Directive 2009/71 need a revision of the guidelines to increase coherence, which is now medium. They also show overlap with the IAEA. The relevance of this obligations is considered medium following the survey. The survey also indicates medium EU added value, which is probably due to the overlap with the IAEA.

H H M M M

Sepa

rate


9(1) Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive The three obligations for Directive 2009/71 need a revision of the guidelines to increase coherence, which is now medium. They also show overlap with the IAEA. This progress report has medium relevance and added value, because compliance checking is important to enforce legislation, however due to overlap the added value is limited.

H M M M M

Sepa

rate


Coun

cil D

irec

tive

201

1/70

/Eur

atom


13 Notify on national programmes and any subsequent significant changes Integrating the nuclear energy obligations in the NECP would risk a loss of technical and detailed information that is crucial for ensuring safety. In addition, integration would have legal, institutional and international implications as well, which make the costs of integration higher than the benefits. We therefore recommend to keep nuclear obligations separate. Streamlining within the nuclear obligations is recommended, as well as with IAEA for the MS obligations.

Sepa

rate


14(1) Report on implementation The intervention logics are achieved, so the effectiveness is high. The obligations from Directive 2011/70 show the most overlap with IAEA for joint convention (interview) as well as with Directive 2006/117. This influences the coherence. The relevance is medium and the EU added value low, as found in the survey and backed up by expert judgement.

H H M M L

Sepa

rate


14(3) Self-assessments and international peer reviews directive shows overlap with IAEA and joint convention and 2006/118

H H L M L

Sepa

rat

e



93

Lega

l bas

is Name /


Art. Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

val

ue

reco

mm

enda

tio

n fo

r N

ECP


REG

ULA

TIO

N (

EC)

No

1099

/200

8


6,4 Every five years, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the data transmitted as well as on any methodological changes that have been made All backward-looking, quantitative information should be reported directly to Eurostat, to prevent delays in reporting and ensure transparency and access to information. This should as such be integrated in the overall NECP together to ensure coherency.

L M H M M

inte

grat

e

Already goes to Eurostat

4.1(a) Transmit national statistics (annual) All backward-looking, quantitative information should be reported directly to Eurostat, to prevent delays in reporting and ensure transparency and access to information. This should as such be integrated in the overall NECP together to ensure coherency.

inte

grat

e

4.1(b) Transmit national statistics (monthly) All backward-looking, quantitative information should be reported directly to Eurostat, to prevent delays in reporting and ensure transparency and access to information. This should as such be integrated in the NECP together to ensure coherency.

H

inte

grat

e

4.1(c) Transmit national statistics (short-term monthly) All backward-looking, quantitative information should be reported directly to Eurostat, to prevent delays in reporting and ensure transparency and access to information. This should as such be integrated in the NECP together to ensure coherency.

H

inte

grat

e

Reg.

(EU

) 69

1/20

11 European

environmental economic accounts

6 Reporting of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and economy-wide material flow accounts The scope of this obligation is rather on environmental and related economic issues rather than at the core of energy; thus, it may be adequate to separate this obligation.

M H H M H

sepa

rate

H = High, M = Medium, L = Low, 0 = Zero

Table 5-3: Evaluation against the five Better Regulation criteria of each planning and reporting obligation for the European Commission and other actors

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n



94

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


Dire

ctiv

e 20

09/2

8/EC


17(7) + 23(3)

EC

Progress report Costs from interview. The intervention logic is compliance checking, progress checking and knowledge sharing. This can be achieved through this report, so effectiveness is high. Progress checking is relevant to ensure everyone stays on track, however because the statistical data provided by Eurostat comes with a delay of about 2 years, the added value of this synthesis report is only medium.

M H H H M

inte

grat

e

23(10)

EC

Report reviewing the application of this Directive Integration with other energy obligations in an overall Plan will improve coherence, increase oversight and insight in the interlinkages between renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related topics, and reduce the administrative burden.

inte

gra

te

24 EC

Making relevant information public on the transparency platform Costs are assumption. Making the reports publicly available increases the transparency. Recommended to streamline this with Eurostat, so that there is no need for a separate platform. All forward-looking, planning information should be streamlined with the NREAP and progress reports into the NECP.

H H H H H

repe

al

19(5)

EC

Report on typical and default values of biofuels and bioliquids emissions To improve the effectiveness of the directive to reduce indirect land use for biofuels and bioliquids (Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015), to which this obligation relates, this obligation should be merged with this directive and integrated together in the NECP. This would improve the insight in the interlinkages between the Renewable Energy Directive, Fuel Quality Directive, and Directive on Indirect Land Use.

inte

grat

e

Indirect land use for biofuels and bioliquids and Fuel Quality Directive

Dire

cti

ve

2010

/30/

EU


3(4)

EC

Synthetic report of MS 4 years reporting Benefits only compliance checking. Synthesis report of MS reports, which are also considered to have no added value due to significant overlap with market surveillance regulation. The relevance is high to ensure compliance, but it’s already dealt with through a different obligation. No information on effectiveness.

H L H L

Repe

al

Dire

ctiv

e 20

10/3

1/EU

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

9.5

EC

Report on progress of MS in increasing the number of nearly zero energy buildings Integration with other energy obligations in an overall Plan will improve coherence, increase oversight and insight in the interlinkages between renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related topics, and reduce the administrative burden.

inte

gra

te

5,4

EC

Report progress of the Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements Integration with other energy obligations in an overall Plan will improve coherence, increase oversight and insight in the interlinkages between renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related topics, and reduce the administrative burden.

inte

grat

e

Dire

ctiv

e 20

12/

27/E

U Energy Efficiency

Directive 24(3)

EC

Evaluation of annual reports and NEEAPs The intervention logics are compliance checking, progress checking and knowledge sharing. Not all these goals are achieved according to survey.

inte

grat

e


95

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


24(5)

EC

Monitoring on implementation and on exemptions of Article 14 Integration with other energy obligations in an overall Plan will improve coherence, increase oversight and insight in the interlinkages between renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related topics, and reduce the administrative burden.

inte

grat

e

24(10)

EC

Review on the implementation of Article 19(1) Integration with other energy obligations in an overall Plan will improve coherence, increase oversight and insight in the interlinkages between renewable energy, energy efficiency and other related topics, and reduce the administrative burden.

inte

grat

e

Dire

ctiv

e 20

13/3

0/EU


25(3) EC

Annual report based on the information reported by MS to the EC No information on costs and benefits, thus also not on efficiency and effectiveness. The coherence, relevance and EU added value are expected to be high, just like the reports of the MS that this report is based on.

H H H

inte

grat

e

40

EC Assessment of experience in implementing the Directive

One-off evaluation for compliance checking and progress checking.

int

eg

Regu

lati

on

2964

/95/

EC Regulation

introducing registration for crude oil imports and deliveries in the Community

8

EC

COM to analyse information and communicate it to MS There are medium to low costs for this EC reporting and high benefits as report provides aggregate analysis on the EU situation, hence efficiency is high. Effectiveness and coherence are also high. This is EC reporting to MS, hence separate from NECPs.

H H H H H

Inte

grat

e

Regu

lati

on

994/

2010


14

EC

Report on the security of gas supply to be included in annual reporting in Directive 2009/73/EC There is rather significant administrative cost involved in producing conclusions for EU energy policy from MS Preventive action plans and Emergency plans, yet the benefits from this aggregation are high, hence efficiency is high. The effectiveness is high as information is mostly necessary and it is not available from other sources. The coherence can be considered problematic as the scope and approaches from MS input reporting have not been well aligned, hence regulation "has failed to bring about a clear system in which the supply standard is monitored and enforced in a systematic manner" (EC report on implementation of Regulation (EU) 994/2010). This is being addressed in the review of the regulation. The reporting obligation is to be repealed.

H H L L L

repe

al

Coun

cil

Deci

sion

19

99/2

80

"REMIT" Council Decision of 22 April 1999 regarding a Community procedure for

4

EC

Publish crude oil supply cost cif (and the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of duties and taxes charged) This obligation has a good turnaround time. There are low costs for this EC reporting and high benefits as reporting is used by a wide range of stakeholders; hence efficiency is high. Effectiveness and coherence also are high. Relevance and EU added value are also high - MS, European Central Bank, industry and business associations all gain access to EU level analysis. It can be streamlined with Eurostat in the future.

H H H H H

inte

grat

e



96

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


information and consultation on crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of petroleum products

4

EC

Publish consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes charged (weekly Oil Bulletin) There are low costs for this EC reporting and high benefits as reporting is used by a wide range of stakeholders; hence efficiency is high. Effectiveness and coherence also are high. Relevance and EU added value are also high - MS, European Central Bank, industry and business associations all gain access to EU level analysis.

H H H H H

inte

grat

e


Deci

sion

994

/201

2/EU


8 EC

Report on information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between Member States and third countries in the field of Energy A Proposal for a revision of Decision 994/2012/EU was presented by the EC on 16.2.2016, COM(2016) 53 final. The proposal includes an almost identical reporting obligation by 1. January 2020, but no regular reporting thereafter. The integration of this reporting obligation seems adequate given its high relevance, EU added value, effectiveness, coherence and efficiency, and the fact that the reporting in the current proposal is limited to 2020.

H H H H H

inte

grat

e

Dire

ctiv

e 20

05/8

9/EC


7(5)

EC

Report on investment intentions their contribution to the objectives set out in Article 1(1) Reporting is based on MS reporting to EC according to Dir. 2005/89/EC, Art 7 paragraph 1d (see there). EC is to report back to MS, competent authorities and to ACER, while MS report this information directly to ACER under other obligations. Therefore this obligation seems obsolete.

M L L H L

repe

al

Dire

ctiv

e 20

08/9

2/EC


8

EC

Report on the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users The report is informative in terms of providing analysis of trends and conclusions. However this information is already reported in the ACER report, furthermore the price is reported to Eurostat and therefore easily accessible to the public. 2013 study also suggested to abolish the Annual report on Dir 2008/92, Art 8.

H H M H L

repe

al

repeal or integrate with ACER Annual Report internal markets in electricity and natural gas (Reg 713/2009 Art 11)


97

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


Dire

ctiv

e 20

09/7

2/EC


47

EC

Overall progress report on internal market of electricity; should include MS measures for improving competition +/- recommendations The content of this report largely overlaps with the information provided in the ACER Annual Report on internal markets in electricity and natural gas (Reg 713/2009 Art 11). It has some positive benefits in terms of contribution to the transparency and information sharing on energy markets. However, it is still less informative and does not provide comprehensive overview of MS level data, and suffers from a lack of innovative presentation in comparison to the report from ACER. It therefore can be repealed in order to avoid unnecessary overlap and the burden related with producing the report. It has to be noted that this obligation and the Obligation under Directive 2009/73 Art 54 is the same report that covers gas and electricity market overview.

M M M M

repe

al

the report can be substituted by the ACER Annual Report on internal markets in electricity and natural gas (Reg 713/2009 Art 11)

22

TSO

s

Submit a national ten-year network development plan based on existing and forecast supply and demand, containing efficient measures in order to guarantee the adequacy of the system and the security of supply; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) The TYNDP is prepared by TSOs, which are external agencies, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. Furthermore it is a well-established obligation that feeds the European Community wide TYNDP prepared by ENTSO-E (714/2009), which is an important argument for keeping it separate from NECP, since EC TYNDP has different thematic scope and focus. Keeping it separate will allow maintaining a high level of detail and granularity needed for the EU plan. The 2-year periodicity is also working well according to the ENTSOs. The TYNDP is seen as an important document with benefit in form of clear planning and relevance to important policy decisions on infrastructure investments, incl. PCIs. It is still seen as somewhat burdensome for TSOs

M M L H H

sepa

rate

Dire

ctiv

e 20

09/7

3/EC


52

EC

Overall progress report on internal market of gas; should include MS measures for improving competition +/- recommendations The content of this report largely overlaps with the information provided in the ACER Annual Report on internal markets in electricity and natural gas (Reg 713/2009 Art 11). It has some positive benefits in terms of contribution to the transparency and information sharing on energy markets. However it is still less informative and does not provide comprehensive overview of MS level data, and suffers from a lack of innovative presentation in comparison to the report from ACER. It therefore can be repealed in order to avoid unnecessary overlap and the burden related with producing the report. It has to be noted that this obligation and the Obligation under Directive 2009/72 Art 47 is the same report that covers gas and electricity market overview.

M M M M

repe

al

the report can be substituted by the ACER Annual Report on internal markets in electricity and natural gas (Reg 713/2009 Art 11)


98

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


22

TSO

s

Submit a national ten-year network development plan based on existing and forecast supply and demand, containing efficient measures in order to guarantee the adequacy of the system and the security of supply; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) The TYNDP is prepared by TSOs, which are external agencies, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. Furthermore it is a well-established obligation that feeds the European Community wide TYNDP prepared by ENTSO-G (715/2009), which is an important argument for keeping it separate from NECP, since EC TYNDP has different thematic scope and focus. Keeping it separate will allow maintaining a high level of detail and granularity needed for the EU plan. The 2-year periodicity is also working well according to the ENTSOs. The TYNDP is seen as an important document with benefit in form of clear planning and relevance to important policy decisions on infrastructure investments, incl. PCIs. It is still seen as somewhat burdensome for TSOs.

M M L H H

sepa

rate

Dire

ctiv

e 94

/22/

EC


8(2)

EC

Report on the conditions for granting and using authorization for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons No reports under this obligation have been published since 1998 and it has not been requested according to the 2013 streamlining report. Apparently it is not needed and can be repealed.

L L L

repe

al

Regu

lati

on (

EC)

713/

2009


13

EC

Inputs to annual ACER activity report The content of the report does not address the Energy Union or any other policy objective. It is rather an administrative report on the activities of ACER. However it ensures the transparency of ACER activities and spending ("how the EU taxpayers money is spent") by ACER. Although the report was recognised to be burdensome, ACER sees it as necessary practice and appreciates the importance of keeping it. The administrative nature of the report does not make it suitable for integration into common reporting addressing energy and climate policy trends. Therefore it should stay separate and be maintained.

M L 0 0 M

sepa

rate

34

EC

Evaluation report on ACER So far there was only one evaluation of ACER (2014). However, this exercise already shows its importance in terms of usefulness of analysis of activities and impact of ACER for its overall performance, improving the governance, assessing possibilities within the allocated resources, ensuring transparency and good communication. Overall the evaluation study was timely (4 years after establishment of ACER) and was scoped well. It achieved to address necessary evaluation questions. It is important to keep this obligation, as the evaluation of such publicly funded organisations is an important (and a traditionally required) element in ensuring positive value and impact generated by public spending.

H H H H H

sepa

rate


99

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


11

ACER

ACER Annual Report internal markets in electricity and natural gas This report is prepared by ACER, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. ACER Annual Report on internal markets in electricity and natural gas is the key EU report on trends and developments in electricity and energy markets, and it is recommended that it remains so. It provides very good level of details and ACER maintained good quality over time. It was suggested that the EC relies on this report and ACER in preparing its report to EP and Council on Overall progress report in internal market of gas and electricity (Dir 2009/72 Art 47 and Dir 2009/73 Art 52). Other reports of ACER (Reg 347/2011 and 543/2013) will also need alignment with this report. The report in general has quite a high impact and relevance in terms of providing better transparency, monitoring, data provision on energy markets. However it is noted to be rather effort intensive, not only due to the high level of details, but also due to problems with accessing data. It is recommended that ACER is given a stronger mandate in accessing the data in preparing this report. Report should stay separate and maintain its role as one of the key reports on EU energy market.

M H H H H

sepa

rate

Reg.

(E

U)

No

1316

/2


27

EC

Ex post evaluation examining the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEF and its impact This is an ex post evaluation examining the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEF established by the Regulation, and of its impact; therefore, this obligation should not be kept separate of regular reporting and planning obligations.

H H H H H

sepa

rate

Regu

lati

on (

EU)

No

347/

2013


17

EC

Report on the implementation of PCIs It is rather time consuming and costly for ACER to produce the report; hence efficiency is medium. A lot of work has already been made to ensure more consistency and reliability in reporting. ACER has launched a specifically designed electronic tool to gather MS input. The EC needs not only the report from MS and ACER, but also wants access to the raw data and information on PCIs. So there is an important risk of overlaps in this area. This report is prepared by ACER, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. Furthermore, given the efforts and costs already put into developing a common electronic reporting system by ACER and signing of MoUs with MS, reporting should be maintained, but it must be carefully assessed how to use this ACER system for the requirements of other reports (EC needs).

M M M H H

sepa

rate

Regu

lati

on 7

14/2

009


8

ENTS

O-E

Adopt a non-binding Community-wide ten-year network development plan, (Community-wide network development plan), including the modelling of the integrated network, scenario development, a European generation adequacy outlook and an assessment of the resilience of the system; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) CW TYNDP is one of the key bases for energy network development across the EU. It builds on the national plans and regional plans prepared by TSOs. This plan is prepared by the ENTSO-E, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. The plan should stay separate because it carries a rather complex but important content, which risks to lose granularity if integrated into NECP. The benefits of the EU level TYNDP are high due to important EU added value, impact on the national level such as better investment decision making, improved security of energy supply. The plan is very needed and relevant with the energy infrastructure playing an important role in the MS economies. Needless to point out that this plan is well aligned with the national and regional NDPs.

H H L H H

sepa

rate


100

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


Regu

lati

on 7

14/2

009


12(1)

TSO

s

Publish a regional investment plan; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) Regional plans are important and well justified in the context of cross-country energy networks. Their development should be kept separate. This plan is prepared by TSOs, which are external agencies, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. Furthermore, the regional scope of the plan (in contrast to the national scope) will require regional coordination on the one hand, and on the other hand does not allow it to be easily substituted by the national plans. However, the activities of the regional plans can and should be reflected in the national plans. The regional plans proved their relevance by being specific to needs and local circumstances of the specific regions/groups of countries linked geographically and economically. Their development, although rather effort intensive, is justified by the benefits and efficiencies it generates.

H H H H H

sepa

rate

Regu

lati

on 7

15/2

009


8

ENTS

O-G

Adopt a non-binding Community-wide ten-year network development plan, (Community-wide network development plan), including the modelling of the integrated network, scenario development, a European generation adequacy outlook and an assessment of the resilience of the system; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) CW TYNDP is one of the key bases for energy network development across the EU. It builds on the national plans and regional plans prepared by TSOs. This plan is prepared by the ENTSO-E, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. The plan should stay separate because it carries a rather complex but important content, which risks to lose granularity if integrated into NECP. The benefits of the EU level TYNDP are high due to important EU added value, impact on the national level such as better investment decision making, improved security of energy supply. The plan is very needed and relevant with the energy infrastructure playing an important role in the MS economies. Needless to point out that this plan is well aligned with the national and regional NDPs.

H H L H H

sepa

rate

Regu

lati

on 7

15/2

009


12(1)

TSO

s

Publish a regional investment plan; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) Regional plans are important and well justified in the context of cross-country energy networks. Their development should be kept separate. This plan is prepared by TSOs, which are external agencies, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. Furthermore, the regional scope of the plan (in contrast to the national scope) will require regional coordination on the one hand, and on the other hand does not allow it to be easily substituted by the national plans. However, the activities of the regional plans can and should be reflected in the national plans. The regional plans proved their relevance by being specific to needs and local circumstances of the specific regions/groups of countries linked geographically and economically. Their development, although rather effort intensive, is justified by the benefits and efficiencies it generates.

H H H H H

sepa

rate


101

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


Regu

lati

on N

o 12

27/2

011


7(2) and (3)

ACER

Market Monitoring Report and recommendations This report is prepared by ACER, which is an external agency, whose reporting obligations should stay separate from NECP. However, there is room for streamlining as the Reg 1227/2011 says "Reports may be combined with the report referred to in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009." De facto different departments at ACER produce the report for 1227/2011 and 713/2009. Furthermore, it was reported to overlap with Reg 543/2013 (submission and publication of data in electricity markets), on data collected for both obligations. Aligning of these two regulations are needed according to ACER. In contrast to the report on 713/2009, this report has easier process preparation due to clear mandate of ACER in collecting data from NRAs, stakeholders, etc. The report is seen as beneficial in terms of usefulness of information and informing policy makers, however it's coherence is assessed as low due to strong overlap with 543/2009 in data collection, which creates double burden to the market participants providing data in different times and template. Thus, while the report should stay separate from NECP, it should be considered to be streamlined with the report under Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009.

M H L M M

sepa

rate

merge with Reg 713/2009 Art 11 and Reg 543/2013

Regu

lati

on N

o 25

6/20

14


10

EC

Cross-sector analysis of the structural evolution and perspectives of the Union’s energy system EC reporting is strongly based on MS reporting (art. 3 and 5; see there); notable overlaps of MS reporting to EC exist with other MS reporting obligations including to ENTSO-E/-G, while of high efficiency and EU added value, however at medium relevance; repealing seems adequate based on notable overlaps with MS reporting to ENTSO-E/-G.

H M H M H

repe

al

Streamline with ENTSO-E, ENTSOG

Regu

lati

on N

o 66

3/20

09,

as a

men

ded

by

regu

lati

on 1

233/

2010


28

EC

Report on implementation of financial assistance to projects in the field of energy The Reg. 663/2009 amended by Reg. 1233/2010 included legal commitments between 2009 and 31 March 2011. The latest EC report to Council and EP COM(2015) 484 final of 8.10.2015 specifies: "The EEPR [European Energy Programme for Recovery] has delivered good results. The majority of projects have been completed, particularly regarding gas and electricity infrastructures. [...] The EEEF [European Energy Efficiency Fund] has also been successful: a commercial fund was established that will continue to grow, providing financing solutions and generating profits covering administrative expenses, shareholders’ dividend and repayment of establishment costs." Thus, project reporting will become obsolete soon.

H M M L M

repe

al

Coun

cil

Deci

sion

20

08/1

14/E

t

Statutes for the Euratom treaty

3

EC

Report on the activities of the Agency in the previous year and a work programme for the next year Integrating the nuclear energy obligations in an overall Plan would risk a loss of technical and detailed information that is crucial for ensuring safety. In addition, integration would have legal, institutional and international implications as well, which make the costs of integration higher than the benefits. We therefore recommend to keep nuclear obligations separate. Streamlining within the nuclear obligations is recommended (see below), as well as with IAEA for the MS obligations (see above).

L H M M M

Sepa

rate


102

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


Coun

cil D

ir.

2006

/117

/ Eu

rato

m


20(2)

EC

Summary report on the implementation of the Directive with particular attention for art. 4 The intervention logic is compliance checking and data gathering for other uses. The survey shows that this is done moderately well. The interviews show that the report partly overlaps with the report for Directive 2011/70, which is also on the topic of nuclear waste and spent fuel, as well as with the IAEA. The Member States do not think these reports are very relevant or have high added value. The Commission does think so, but the high categorisation has been lowered to medium.

M M L M M

Sepa

rate

Merge with progress report for Directive 2011/70

Coun

cil D

ir.

2009

/71/


9(2)

EC

Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive The intervention logic is compliance checking, but the survey shows that the Commission does not find it useful for that. The coherence is moderate because it shows overlap with the IAEA safety and joint convention.

H L M L M

sepa

rate

Coun

cil D

ir.

2011

/70/

Eu

rato

m


14(2)

EC

Report on progress, summary report, inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel and future prospects The intervention logic is compliance checking and data gathering for other uses. The survey shows that this is not done well (not a benefit). It shows overlap with the Commission report of Directive 2006/117, as well as with the IAEA, so the coherence is not good. Also here the Commission finds the report very relevant and with high added value. But due to the lower grading of the input reports by the MS, we categorised both as medium.

H L L M M

sepa

rate

Merge with progress report for Directive 2006/117

Coun

cil R

egul

atio

ns

1368

/201

3 an

d 13

69/2

013


6

EC

Annual work programme Intervention logic is compliance checking, this is not indicated as a benefit, but because policy change and data collection are considered benefits, the overall effectiveness is considered medium. The coherence is high because they have well defined system boundaries. The relevance is unknown. The EU added value is considered low, as expressed in the survey.

H H H H

sepa

rate

6

EC

Progress report Intervention logic is compliance checking and progress checking. Because compliance checking is not considered a benefit, but the data collection is improved, the effectiveness is regarded as medium. Also here the coherence is high due to the specific system boundaries, and the added value is low as expressed by the survey.

H H H H

sepa

rate

Eura

tom

Tre

aty


40

EC

Publish illustrative programmes indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets and all the types of investment required for their attainment Planning obligations to increase public confidence and market transparency. It appears not many other reports focus on transparency for investments (see benefits other nuclear obligations). However, there is limited activity and/or plans for building new nuclear power plant in the EU so this may not have too high added value for the EU. Integrating the nuclear energy obligations in an overall Plan would risk a loss of technical and detailed information that is crucial for ensuring safety. In addition, integration would have legal, institutional and international implications as well, which make the costs of integration higher than the benefits. We therefore recommend to keep nuclear obligations separate. Streamlining within the nuclear obligations is recommended, as well as with IAEA for the MS obligations (see above).

H M L

sepa

rate


103

Lega

l bas

is


Art. Actor

Description

Effi

cien

cy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Cohe

renc

e

Rele

vanc

e

EU A

dded

va

lue

reco

mm

enda

tion

for

Pla

n


Reg.

(EC

) N

o 10

99/2

008 Regulation on

Energy Statistics 5(5)

EC

(Eur

osta

t)

The Commission (Eurostat) shall disseminate yearly energy statistics by 31 January of the second year following the reported period All backward-looking, quantitative relevant information should be reported directly to Eurostat, to prevent delays in reporting and ensure transparency and access to information, as well as confidentiality issues. This should as such be integrated in the overall Plan together to ensure coherency.

H

inte

grat

e

H = High, M = Medium, L = Low, 0 = Zero


105

PART B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union


107

Problem definition 6This chapter provides the evidence and assesses the significance of the policy problems related to

reporting and planning obligations in the EU energy field. In particular, this chapter assesses to what

extent the existing reporting and planning obligations create a ‘problem’ with respect to implementing

the objectives of the Energy Union strategy. The scale of the inefficiencies and any issues with the

implementation and enforcement of existing legislation are described and analysed. Best practices with

regard to national streamlining solutions and digital processing are identified and analysed.

Problem that requires action 6.1

In the current EU energy acquis planning and reporting obligations have been designed for each EU

energy policy, including numerous planning and reporting obligations for both Member States and the

Commission. Reporting obligations are included in nearly every legislative act, although with different

degrees of required detail and varying frequencies. For the Energy Union, the Commission foresees the

need for an “integrated governance and monitoring process, to make sure that energy-related actions

at European, regional, national and local level all contribute to the Energy Union's objectives”.59 In the

context of the 2030 Framework for climate and energy, the European Council also called for a “reliable

and transparent governance system without any unnecessary administrative burden […] to help ensure

that the EU meets its energy policy goals”.60

The core of the new governance system will consist of several components: integrated National Energy

and Climate Plans (NECPs), a transparent monitoring mechanism based inter alia on streamlined

reporting, and further regional integration. NECPs are expected to result in greater coherence among

the Member States' approaches, promote further market integration and competition and provide

predictability and certainty for investments. The plans should be guided by and reflect the broader

objectives of the five dimensions of the Energy Union strategy, and take a more holistic approach to the

energy system while fully recognising all interactions between energy policies and climate action

objectives.

The more specific policy objectives are:

• Ensuring that the process for preparing and finalising the integrated NECPs is timely and that

all the interested stakeholders can express their views;

• Ensuring consistency of the content of these plans across Member States and the reflection of

the broader objectives of the five dimensions of the Energy Union, including the 2030 targets

for climate and energy;

• Ensuring that the plans are reliable and thus contribute to investor confidence and certainty.

The revision process of these plans shall therefore be transparent, predictable and foster

investments in the energy sector;

• Ensuring that the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations on all the dimensions provide

relevant information to monitor progress and steer the policy debate, while at the same time

reducing the administrative burden on Member States.

59 COM(2015)80. A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy 60 Council of the European Union (2015). Council conclusions on the governance system of the Energy Union


108

The results of the REFIT Fitness Check (see Chapter 5) of the existing planning and reporting obligations

in the energy highlight a number of problem areas that require action. This section consolidates nine

the most prominent problem areas that represent current obstacles to reaching the defined Energy

Union objectives.

Problem 1: General lack of overview regarding reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis

There are numerous reporting requirements in the EU energy acquis, and it is cumbersome to get an

overview of all obligations and their detailed requirements. The variety of obligations create an

obscure overall picture of who is reporting to whom, what is the level of reporting (national vs. EU),

what is being reported on and when it is done.

The current national practices do not integrate separate planning and reporting obligations as they are

derived from different directives and cover different topics, and as such in many countries by different

ministries. Hence gaining synergies from combining content is difficult. MSs also differ on who does the

reporting. In some MSs all energy directives are under the responsibility of the same ministry or agency;

however, in other MSs they are spread across different ministries, even for the same legislation. In

countries where there is a wide division of reporting responsibilities, streamlining is more difficult to

coordinate.

REFIT Fitness Check (REFIT FC) survey results highlighted that ‘the number of reporting stakeholders’

(20% of all respondents) and ‘the size of the MS’ (19% of all respondents) are among the most important

factors influencing the administrative burden of planning and reporting obligations (see section 5.2,

question 3). Qualitative interviews revealed that it is not always clear to the officials responsible for

reporting what is the use and the purpose of the reported data (see Annex E). This indicates the

complexity of information flows in the current reporting system.

The integrated NECPs should considerably improve the overview and establish clarity on the key

objectives, scope and flows of reporting obligations.

Problem 2: Large amount of data to be reported and analysed by MSs and the Commission

The level of detail required from the Member States’ (and the Commission’s) reports is appraised as

significant resulting in a relatively high administrative burden on the staff responsible for reporting.

This is seen as a notable bottleneck in the current system.

The majority of the MSs interviewed in the framework of REFIT FC view fulfilling the reporting

obligations as very burdensome administratively (see Annex E). A number of respondents to this survey

also commented that the level of detail required by EU reporting and monitoring obligations is an

important cost factor for their administrations (see section 5.2, question 3).

In particular, the annual progress reports where the MSs have to report on a lot of (statistical) details

are seen as the most burdensome; hence streamlining there has the highest potential. The annual

progress reports are seen as adding only limited value as they take a lot of time, while a significant

share of energy related data is already available from Eurostat (see Problem 4). This has led several MSs

to question why they have to report on these details again.


109

Also the Commission in REFIT FC interviews pointed out that the current system requires huge amounts

of detailed data, resulting in reports of up to hundreds of pages (see Annex E). If this is multiplied by 28

MSs, the quantity of information to be used by the Commission is very large. For some obligations

elaborated templates are used to collect the data (see section 3.2.4). These templates generally work

well; however, the data sometimes is still reported by Member States to the Commission in different

formats, such as Excel or Word files. The Commission must then integrate the data into a common

format, which in case of detailed reports is very time-consuming task.

Electronic reporting systems are considered useful to deal with this data deluge. For instance, some

parts of annual reporting, in particular the statistics, could be automated by the system to save time

and cost.

Problem 3: Duplications and redundancies in reporting adding to administrative burden

A number of inconsistencies and overlapping obligations exist in the current requirements, where MSs

report the same information to multiple entities, under different legal bases, or different organisations

producing separate reports on the same topic (for details see section 3.2.8 and Annex G, Q26). Also

REFIT FC survey results show that 41% of the respondents indicate that they report the same data under

more than one reporting obligation, and around 15% of the respondents do not know whether there is

any overlap in their data reporting (seeAnnex G, Q26).

The duplications are stemming mainly from inclusion of some general aspects in various reporting

obligations, overlap of specific pieces of legislation and provisions in the EU energy legislation that

oblige MSs to collect and report energy statistics, which is already dealt with by Eurostat. When

comparing the energy indicators from the reporting obligations with the indicators in the Eurostat

database, it was found that from the 81 identified indicators that are reported on by MSs, 27 indicators

show a complete match with the data from Eurostat (see section 3.2.8).

The most complicated area seems to be those MSs obligations which are reported to the Commission

and other organisations, such as ENTSO-E, ENTSOG or joint conventions. The interviews conducted in

the framework of REFIT FC have indicated that there are multiple overlaps in these obligations (see

section 5.1, question 3).

Additional factor that hampers the overall clarity on reporting obligations is the fact that the relevance

of certain obligations is not evident (anymore). There are large differences though between the

legislations on this aspect. Overall, the REFIT FC survey results noted that around 20% of respondents

highlight redundancy of reporting and planning obligations as a significant factor affecting the

administrative burden (see section 5.2, question 3). Several Commission representatives in REFIT FC

interviews emphasised that there are reporting obligations, which do not lead to useful outputs, yet

there is currently no formal mechanism in place for removing or updating obsolete requirements.

Eurostat and ACER also recognise this issue (see Annex E).

Policy-makers share the view that reporting requirements should be tailored to concrete policy needs.

The Commission representatives in REFIT FC interviews also pointed out that obligations established in

legislation and fixed via templates cannot always be amended rapidly enough to satisfy the evolving

information needs for policy-making. Hence it should be carefully weighted to what detail it is useful to

elaborate the reporting requirements in the legislation texts themselves (see Annex E).


110

It must be noted though that reduction of overlaps and duplications should be done carefully with the

final use of the data in mind. For example, currently some MSs are exempted from reporting because

they already submit similar data to a different institution (e.g. regarding Directive 256/2014). Without

a clear overview of the flows of reported data such exemptions and asymmetric reporting simplification

can, however, result in an incomplete dataset for the Commission overview reports and hence possibly

less valuable analyses.

This study will contribute to the mapping of how the information obtained through reporting is

overlapping and where the areas for streamlining exist. Obligations which are clearly not leading to any

useful outputs should be abolished or amended in such a way that they become applicable.

Problem 4: Lack or inconsistencies of indicators to be reported

Another problem relates to the differences in the scope, consistency and granularity of indicators

included in the reporting obligations. While overall there is an agreement that reporting obligations

generally contribute to collecting data on a consistent basis to allow comparisons and benchmarking -

71% of the REFIT FC survey respondents consider this happening to a great extent or somewhat (see

Annex G, Q36) – there are evidence of multiple occasions, where the consistency of indicators should be

improved.

The indicators defined at the EU level may be differently interpreted by MSs; therefore, the extent to

which the data are comparable and coherent between MSs is unclear. The issue is that data standards

(i.e. the exact definition of each data item) are predominantly set at the national level, rather than

the EU level. For example, REFIT FC interviewees highlighted that national data for energy retail

markets can be inconsistent due to national standards that are not harmonised (see Annex E). MSs also

have noticed that there are occasional differences between the data reported in national reports and

the EU reports, because national reports are based on data from the national statistical agencies and

other national sources, while the data reported for EU reports is based on EUROSTAT data. Due these

differences ACER, for instance, reports having gaps and inconsistencies, which results in significant

efforts for resolving the mismatch (see Annex E).

Consistency is also dependent on whether the data gathered at a national level matches the level of

detail or classification required by the EC. If it matches, the administrative burden of reporting is lower

as the data is readily available. However, if the MS needs to retrieve data at another level of detail or

classification than what is normally collected at national level, then the administrative burden of doing

so is very high (see Annex E).

The way forward for streamlining these inconsistencies could be by developing definitions and

interpretations of indicators cooperatively in stakeholder working groups. This way it would be possible

to avoid definitions which are inappropriate for some national circumstances.

Problem 5: Lack of coherence in the timing and frequency of reporting obligations

The results of the REFIT FC survey indicated also that there are perceived inconsistencies in the timing

and/or periodicity of reporting obligations. Overall, in a total of 67 responses, 24 respondents indicated

inconsistencies in the timing of different obligations, 21 indicated inconsistencies regarding the

periodicity of reporting, while 22 respondents saw inconsistencies in both timing and periodicity (see

Annex G, Q30 and Q31).


111

There are a number of reporting obligations on similar topics that have different deadlines for

submission. If one reporting takes place at a given point in time, and a similar reporting obligation

sometime later (e.g. in a few months), the danger is that the source data may have meanwhile evolved

leading to different results and conclusions, even though reporting is on similar aspects.

For some directives the frequency of the update should be more in line with the topic of the obligation.

Where the object of reporting is slow to change in the market (e.g. Article 2 and 7 of Council

Regulation (EC) No 2964/95) annual updates could be substituted with longer time lags between

reporting, such as two or even four years. Yet, on other aspects, where the market evolution is more

dynamic, trimestral reporting would be more suitable rather than annual one. With regard to the

Commission’s obligations, it was REFIT FC interviews noted that evaluations by the Commission are

sometimes required too early in the implementation process, when there is little evidence from the

application of the legislation to report on (see Annex E).

A different type of bottleneck that hampers coherence relates to more data access issues. In REFIT FC

interview ACER reported having experienced problems with access to data, due to the lack of mandate

for data collection from ENTSOs (see Annex E). This data is especially critical in producing flagship

reports on monitoring energy markets.

Problem 6: Lack of unified and systematic electronic reporting

The lack of unified electronic reporting system that could contribute to streamlining efforts is another

problem area. Currently there are multiple electronic reporting systems that are used for various

obligations (see Annex G, Q10 for details). In general, REFIT FC interviewees support the extension or

establishment of a unified electronic reporting system in order to: 1) reduce time and administrative

burden; 2) allow for enhanced comparability between MSs reports; and 3) reduce duplication and

reporting overlaps (see Annex E).

However, there are also opposing views on a single electronic system. REFIT FC interviews results found

that countries with larger administrations are either more hesitant or negative regarding the

introduction of a new electronic system (see Annex E). Interviewees highlighted that a new electronic

system would pose additional administrative burden in terms of training and adaptation time, as well as

would mean a significant effort for the Commission to implement such a system.

There are also other obstacles to such unified electronic systems. One REFIT FC interviewee pointed out

that the monitoring of reporting on natural gas markets (Reg. 347/2013) is done via a portal that is used

by many European countries. During the first year of the portal use there was no binding legal

framework; however, this year countries had to sign a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure data

security on the portal. The authorities in this particular MS were not able to sign this Memorandum as

its provisions are not compatible with the national law (see Annex E). This example illustrates the

possible difficulties of fitting a single electronic system to all EU countries and accommodating the

variety of legal and administrative provisions that exist at national level, especially with regards to

data security.

Problem 7: The potential of the EU added value is not fully exploited

REFIT FC results noted a number of positive contributions of reporting and planning obligations to the

EU value added, including, among others, the provision of information that is not available from other


112

sources, the increase of transparency of MSs energy policies, the importance of reporting in evidence-

based policy-making on the part of ACER and Eurostat (see section 5.5). Yet, the ambivalence of survey

and interview replies denote that there is an important scope for improvements to increase the EU

added value from reporting and planning obligations in energy and climate area.

A large share of REFIT FC interviewees consider that reporting does not lead to the alignment of

approaches or improved cooperation among the Member States, but that it rather helps the functioning

of national markets. This implies that EC reporting obligations are not improving cooperation among

MSs to the extent possible, at least not to the same level in all MSs. It appears also that the

contribution to alignment of approaches varies between policy areas, with a more positive contribution

in those areas where there are relatively coherent plans and data standards (e.g. renewable energy)

but less so where the differences are larger and arguably more ingrained (see section 5.5).

There are also mixed views on the success of reporting in improving coherence within MSs. It appears

that there are examples of cross-ministry working being facilitated through the need for joint

reporting, but the benefits are limited. While in principle there is an agreement that MSs can learn

from each other using the reported data, there are no outstanding examples of this process and the

opinions collected in REFIT FC interviews indicate some scepticism to such learning actually occurring in

practice (see section 5.5).

Addressing the various problems related to reporting obligation streamlining will certainly help to

increase also the EU added value. Yet targeted efforts should be applied to enable and incentivise

mutual learning among MSs in order to reap the full benefits that can stem from the coordination,

integration and transparency of national energy policies.

Problem 8: Differences between quantitative vs. qualitative reporting

It must be borne in mind that there is an inherent dilemma for the efforts to improve consistency of

reporting obligations, namely comparability vs flexibility. The comparability of MSs data requires

concrete and systematic guidelines for reporting, while the subject area and the differences that exist

among MSs energy systems call for a certain degree of flexibility in reporting requirements. The balance

between comparability and flexibility is determined by the concreteness of policy objectives.

Respondents to REFIT FC interviews identified a fundamental difference between statistical data

reporting and provision of analytical reports. As indicated in the REFIT FC survey findings, the

preparation of the qualitative analysis for the reports takes up to 20% of the overall reporting costs (see

section 5.2, question 3). Planning obligations include mostly qualitative analysis and any templates of

these obligations have to involve a notable degree of flexibility (see Annex E).

When it comes to qualitative input, the introduction of electronic platforms is also not reducing much

the amount of effort required. With regards to the comprehensive Preventive Action Plans, Emergency

Plans and Risks Assessments under the Regulation 994/2010, REFIT FC MSs interviewees were of the

opinion that more detailed guidelines and support from the EC is necessary to improve the quality and

coherence of these reports. Currently broad headings for the plans provided by the EC and good

practice examples are highlighted to MSs to show how best to approach certain aspects of the plans.

However, more detailed templates that outline the type of information to be included in the reports

and help options would be desirable.


113

A potential way forward to resolve this coherence and flexibility dilemma is the introduction of

template modularity, where submission of the report by sections is enabled. Annexes, for instance,

could also be employed to provide important additional information that is not mandated by the

uniform guidelines.

Affected stakeholders 6.2

The planning and reporting system for EU Energy legislation involves a numbers of stakeholders. This

includes the European Commission, Eurostat, European organisations such as Cooperation of Energy

Regulators (ACER), the European Network of Transmission System Operators for gas and electricity

(ENTSO-E and ENTSOG), and the Member state authorities, National Regulatory authorities for energy

(NRA) and Transmission System Operators. All these stakeholders are affected to a different extent by

the problems related to planning and reporting in energy legislation.

The European Commission deals with the reporting obligations of the majority of directives. The EC

prepares progress reports and analytical summaries that are further circulated to the European

Parliament, the Council and/or fed back to the Member States. Duplication of reporting obligations

creates additional administrative burden for the EC. Different units dealing with different legislations

might collect the same type of data information. There is also room for reducing overlaps in reporting

with ACER. EC representatives highlighted that there are too many reporting obligations that do not

lead to useful outputs and no clear procedures are in place for ‘cleaning’ the system or updating

obsolete requirements. There are also difficulties with the aggregation of MS input and monitoring the

situation across the EU when MS reports are not provided in a unified format, or in cases where they are

of diverse quality and scope. The indicators defined by the EU may be interpreted differently by the 28

Member States, hence it is unclear how coherent and comparable the reporting is between them. For

some directives the amount of information requested is very extensive (up to hundreds of pages). When

this information is multiplied by 28 MS it requires substantial effort from EC to organise analytical

overviews.

Eurostat collects statistics under mandatory and (semi)voluntary data reporting obligations and

provides public access to the data. The mandatory data collection routines include reporting for

Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 on energy statistics and Directive 2009/119/EC on Oil Stocks. Eurostat

assists and produces harmonised calculations in support of the following directives (as part the overall

longer reports MSs have to deliver to EC): Directive 2009/28/EC on SHARES tool, CHP data defined in

Directive 2012/27/EU. Other voluntary reporting includes data on competition indicators, as well as

estimation of various energy related indicators (e.g. early CO2 emissions61), which are based on

genuinely collected data and answer specific user needs, mainly related to energy policy monitoring.

Eurostat also assists DG Climate Action with the data collection on carbon leakage list.

The Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) is a very important player in the

European Energy regulatory field. ACER was established under Regulation (EC) 713/2009 in order to fill

the regulatory gap at Community level and to contribute towards the effective functioning of the

internal market in electricity and natural gas. ACER received additional tasks under Regulation (EU) No

61 This is a calculation based on monthly energy statistics (which is mandatory reporting under Regulation 1099/2008) and official IPCC data transmission.


114

1227/2011 on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency (REMIT) and in 2013 under Regulation

(EU) No 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure. Its overall mission, as stated

in its founding regulation, is to complement and coordinate the work of national energy regulators at

the EU level, and to work towards the completion of the single EU energy market for electricity and

natural gas. ACER plays a central role in the development of EU-wide network and market rules with a

view to enhancing competition. The Agency coordinates regional and cross-regional initiatives, which

favour market integration. It monitors the work of European networks of transmission system operators

(ENTSOs), and notably, their EU-wide network development plans. Finally, ACER monitors the

functioning of gas and electricity markets in general, and of wholesale energy trading in particular.

While the reporting obligations of ACER are well defined and successfully implemented, there is room

for reducing overlap with the EC in reporting on developments in the EU electricity and gas markets.

Lack of mandate prevents ACER from efficient collection of data for their reports.

The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and the

European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG) is intended to facilitate and

enhance cooperation between national electricity and gas transmission system operators across Europe

in order to ensure the development of a pan-European transmission system in line with European Union

energy goals. They promote the completion of the internal market for electricity and gas, stimulate

cross-border trade, ensure the efficient management and coordinated operation of the European

electricity and gas networks and facilitate the European network's sound technical evolution. In terms

of obligations, both organisations are responsible for the development of Community-wide network

development plans for electricity and gas every two years.

The Member State authorities responsible for planning and reporting obligations comprise Ministries,

national regulatory authorities, statistical bureaus and in some countries national stock holding

agencies. The key concerns for MS authorities are duplications, overlaps and redundancies of the

reporting requirements that increase the administrative burden. For some directives the degree of

detail requested in the templates is regarded as a bottleneck that restricts lean reporting. On the

contrary, for more qualitative planning documents, the lack of more elaborated EC templates is

considered as making compliance more time-consuming and costly. Some interviewees reported that EU

reporting obligations should be considered as a subset of national reporting obligations. This view is

especially true for most ‘old’ EU MS, except the Netherlands, which has limited national energy

reporting. New accession states have often taken EU reporting obligations as guidelines to building up

national reporting systems. There are considerable differences among the MSs in terms of the

authorities involved and the coordination mechanisms for fulfilling EC planning and reporting

obligations; hence the effects and costs of EU wide streamlining of reporting obligations may also

substantially differ.

National regulatory authorities in energy are the legally distinct and functionally independent entities

at national level that deal with a set of task related energy market and energy legislation (defined in

Directives 2009/72 and 2009/73). They ensure transparency in setting transmission and distribution

tariffs, ensure compliance of the transmissions and distributions of operating with their obligations,

cooperate on cross-border energy transmission issues, monitor and assess investment plans for energy

networks, monitor market opening and competition, ensure customer protection, etc. Their reporting

and planning obligations include the annual report on their activities and fulfilment of duties, annual

report an assessment of the investment plans of the transmission system operators, contribution to the


115

reports of ACER, development of the emergency plan for security of gas supply. The problem noted by

NRA representatives is a lack of coherence among the national plans on securing the gas supply, while

these plans have to rely on cross-regional and cross-border cooperation.

Best practices on reporting streamlining 6.3

The study has also tried to identify good practices on streamlining that can offer some lessons learned

for the new actions under the new governance system. Most of the exiting approaches deal with

increasing oversight and better coordination of the reporting and planning obligations. The simplest

measures include certain organisational norms such as internal checks of data availability within the

responsible body before requesting them from involved stakeholders.

In a number of sectors, the Commission has endeavoured to improve the quality and timeliness of

reporting and/or reduce administrative burden and has put in place some effective solutions. For

example, the various reporting obligations contained in the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)

have already been streamlined by the responsible unit and a joint template covering the different

provisions is in place. DG Energy has also worked closely with Eurostat to ensure the same data on

renewable energy is reported to both institutions. A joint online reporting template has been developed

to facilitate reporting by project promoters to ACER and national competent authorities under

Regulation 347/2013 concerning trans-European energy infrastructure. In some areas, the Commission

has been pragmatic in the application of its reporting obligations in order to ensure that superfluous

reporting does not take place; for example, regarding the annual progress report on the internal market

in electricity produced by the Commission under Directive 2009/72/EC, the Commission produces a

shorter report or even skips a year if there is no policy-related need for such a report.

Oversight of all data requirements for a specific thematic policy area by one organisation, unit of the

ministry and efficient informal coordination between responsible organisations has also been reported

as an important factor for the optimisation of reporting. Since different directives have quite different

topics and reporting obligations, synergies in content is difficult. Yet many directives require reporting

on a list of basic data, which is the same for the different reporting requirements to different

organisations (EC, Eurostat, International Energy Agency). MSs try to coordinate and reuse the prepared

data where possible. Slovakia, for instance, has even set up working groups to support such

cooperation. They are working on how to unify the data sent to the Commission by different

institutions.

For reporting on energy market and authorisation, for example, there is a clear convergence between

national and EU law. As EC directives have to be transposed into national legislation, France tries to

consider national measures and reporting requirements that are already being implemented and

integrate them in the transposition of directives. Such smart transposition helps to optimise reporting

obligations.

The potential for adapting obligations to the developments in the field of digital technologies is only

tapped to a limited degree. Slovakia, for example, has adopted an energy efficiency monitoring system

to keep track of energy savings. This system can also be used to derive data for the annual progress

reports on energy efficiency directives. Another example concerns the use of ACCESS to administer and


116

manage the data for reporting obligations (e.g. under the ELD and the Market Surveillance Regulation

765/2008).

At EU level ACER has established a system for reducing duplications in reporting. ACER has the

obligation to monitor projects of common interest (PCIs), produce annual reports on progress of PCIs

and on issues related to their implementation. Members States have a similar obligation at national

level. The EC receives the reports on PCIs from MS and ACER, but also requires access to the raw data

and information creating a risk of overlap or repeated requests and inefficiencies. ACER has proposed

collecting all PCI data (for MS and EC) through a centralised electronic platform. A Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) was signed with all MSs to agree that project promoters do not need to send the

same information twice. The MOUs foresee the MSs having direct access to the data through the

electronic platform. A similar MOU was signed with the EC giving them access to the data as well.

Despite the fact that it was very time consuming for ACER to establish the electronic reporting system,

it is believed to be very helpful in making reporting and monitoring more efficient for everyone.


117

Policy options 7This Chapter presents the different policy options analysed in this study. The policy options have

already been defined prior to the study in the Fitness Check Roadmap for Streamlining reporting and

planning obligations in the EU energy acquis [REFIT] 62, thus the step of defining the policy options was

not part of this study. The policy options were further explained by the EC during the inception stage

and follow up discussions.

The following options have been addressed:

● Baseline Option (no policy change);

● Option 1: Soft guidance;

● Option 2: Streamlining sectorial legislation;

● Option 3: Single legislative act.

Details on each option are provided in the sections below.

Baseline scenario (no policy change) 7.1

The proposed baseline scenario assumes an unchanged continuation of existing planning or reporting

and monitoring obligations, but no introduction of new obligations. Consequently, all of the current

planning, reporting and monitoring obligations would be extended beyond 2020.

Under this option the obligation that expire by 2020 will be renewed through the revision of the

legislations with subsequent transposition and/or implementation in the Member States.

This scenario reflects new energy and climate policy objectives that were set for the year 2030 by the

Energy Union strategy including the 2030 framework for climate and energy and agreed by the European

Council, which requires respective planning or reporting and monitoring obligations beyond 2020 for

their implementation. Baseline option only assumes that existing obligations are extended / prolonged

after 2020, but no streamlining is envisaged. The baseline scenario has a time horizon to 203063.

The baseline scenario is used as a reference for assessing alternative policy options below.

Policy option 1: Soft guidance to Member States on planning, reporting and 7.2monitoring.

This option implies no regulation (through legislation) of either the structure or process for the

integrated national energy and climate plans and respective progress reports as well as streamlined

monitoring by the Commission. Member States would be invited to streamline and improve planning,

reporting and monitoring obligations by Commission guidance within the limits of the current sectoral

energy and climate legislation.

This option will rely on elements of non-regulatory alternatives like self- and co-regulation.

A non-mandatory template for integrated national energy and climate plans and respective progress

reports would be provided by soft Commission guidance.

62 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf 63 COM(2015) 572. The State of the Energy Union. Includes guidance to Member States on national energy and climate plans as well as a first report on key indicators.


118

Policy option 2: Regulating planning, reporting and monitoring obligations 7.3in the energy and climate field through sector-specific EU energy and climate legislation

This option is based on streamlining the current planning, reporting and monitoring obligations by

revisions of the existing sectoral legislation. This option implies a revision and further development of

the current sectoral legislation in order to streamline the content of existing planning, reporting and

monitoring obligations post 2020 into integrated national energy and climate plans and respective

progress reports, as well as streamlined monitoring by the Commission. A template for integrated

national energy and climate plans and respective progress reports would be provided by soft

Commission guidance (which will be non-mandatory). A single electronic system for reporting will be

set up. At the same time, this option implies no single regulation (through legislation) of the process for

the development of integrated national energy and climate plans and respective progress reports.

Policy option 3: Regulating planning, reporting and monitoring obligations 7.4in the energy and climate field in a single legislative act

This option implies a new legislative act in order to streamline current planning, reporting and

monitoring obligations in the energy [and climate] field post 2020. Legislative provisions would be

adopted in a single harmonised instrument, setting out the process for the development and the

content of integrated national energy and climate plans and respective progress reports, as well as

streamlined monitoring by the Commission. This option would also entail repealing (most) planning,

reporting and monitoring obligations in current sectoral legislation to avoid overlaps with the new

legislative act. A template for integrated national energy and climate plans and respective progress

reports would be provided as part of the new legislative act and would be mandatory for all MS to

adopt. A single electronic system for reporting will be set up.

The following sub-options are considered in this study:

Policy option 3a: Streamlining of all obligations

All current planning and reporting obligations would be streamlined into integrated national energy

and climate plans and respective progress reports.

Policy option 3b: Streamlining of most of obligations

Most of the current planning and reporting obligations would be streamlined into integrated national

energy and climate plans and respective progress reports, while selected obligations would remain

separate (depending upon the obliged entity, periodicity or regional scope)64.

64 Under this options the obligation that remain separate and expire by 2020 will be renewed through the revision of the legislations with subsequent transposition and/or implementation in the Member States.


119

Analysis of impacts 8The goal of the analysis in this section is to assess what the impacts of implementing of each Policy

Option would be, including how the relevant actors including the EC, EU agencies, and MS ministries

and agencies dealing with the reporting would be affected, what changes with respect to compliance,

monitoring and enforcement costs would be expected, including an analysis of the impact of ICT

solutions. The section also tries to identify any wider impacts on policy planning, monitoring of

implementation and legislative transparency that would occur.

Methodology and impacts addressed 8.1

The methodology for the Impact Assessment (IA) builds on the standard approach based on the analysis

of alternative policy options as defined by the Better regulation toolbox65.

The analysis of policy options in this study is based on interviews with key stakeholders and the online

consultation of stakeholders and complemented with the desk research, analysis of pros and cons of

each option and assessment along the better regulation criteria, and cost and benefits/impact expected

in each policy scenario. Results of the REFIT fitness check presented in section A of this report have

provided a basis for building the Baseline scenario, and also allowed to set a benchmark for

comparative analysis among the policy option.

During the reporting period 20 interviews were conducted with representatives of the European

institutions, including 17 interviews with EC officers, one interview with a representative of Eurostat,

one interview with experts from the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators and one interview

with a representative of the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity.

Seventeen stakeholders from the Member States were interviewed, covering Austria, Belgium,

Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain and Poland.

A dedicated section on the interviews addressed the policy option assessment. The questions covered

such issues as:

• complexity of implementation of each policy option (in terms of technical implementation,

availability of human resources, readiness or resistance of staff to changes, etc.),

• potential obstacles and challenges,

• attitude of Member States towards soft guidance and readiness to follow it,

• potential implications of using a single electronic reporting system,

• change in the administrative burden in each policy option, as well as the cost for companies,

• comparison of policy options with regard to how they could address EU objectives, coherence in

obligations, ensure transparency in the energy sector, and improve alignment across national

energy systems,

• preference for specific policy options

• Recommendations with respect to the streamlining of obligations.

65 Better Regulation Toolbox (2015). http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm


120

Furthermore, the results of the Evaluation component of the study (presented in section A) provide a

good basis for benchmarking with the baseline scenario. Insights obtained from the survey implemented

in this study are also used in the analysis.

The IA analysis of each option includes the discussion and analysis of strengths and weaknesses of each

policy option from the perspectives of its practical implementation, duration, feasibility and other

aspects.

The IA focuses on a number of direct and indirect impacts, the assessment of which allows comparison

of the policy options. The table below summarises the categories of impact and respective indicators

used for measuring the impact together with sources of data or information. The focus is on analysing

the direct impacts, while the indirect impacts are addressed to the extent possible.

Table 8-1 Overview of impacts addressed in this IA

Category of Impact Types of impact analysed / indicators

DIRECT IMPACTS

Direct cost

Cost of implementation (one time)

Administrative and reporting costs (ongoing)

ICT / equipment cost

Service outsourcing cost

Specific cost for companies

Direct benefit

Cost saving (in actions, ICT upgrade, etc.)

Higher efficiency of reporting system

Improved information quality

Simpler and more coherent reporting procedures

Specific benefits for companies

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Impact on policy process

Transparency of national and EU policies

Better statistics (EU, MS)

Better national energy and climate policy

Impacts on Energy Union objectives


A fully-integrated internal energy market

Energy efficiency as a contribution to the moderation of energy

demand

Decarbonisation of the economy

Enhance R&I in low carbon technologies and help financing

such projects

The analysis of the direct cost includes cost of implementation of the changes assumed in the PO (one

time cost), annual cost of administrative planning and reporting activities, cost for equipment and ICT

system installation, maintenance and use, cost of outsourcing of reporting and planning services to

external consultants, as well as specific reporting cost for companies.

Implementation cost estimates included cost of such activities as developing a soft guide, templates,

amending and repealing legislations, transpositions, development of new legislative act, as well as

adoption of a NECP by Member States. Specific assumptions have been applied in case of each PO,

which are described in the sections presented below as well as summarised in Annex I.


121

In estimation of the ongoing (annual) reporting costs, the reporting and planning costs estimated in this

study and presented in (Section 4.1) have been used as a basis, with the consideration of annual

inflation rates by 2020. A number of assumptions based on references (studies, actual costs, etc.) have

been used in estimation of the cost of implementation, administration, electronic system, which are

described in the analysis presented in each PO section.

The analysis of direct benefits includes the estimation of cost saving due to interventions in each PO

(based on comparison against the baseline scenario), assessment whether the reporting and planning

system efficiency, reported information quality, reporting and planning procedures have improved, and

whether there are any benefits have been generated for industries.

Analysis of a wider impact on policy processes includes assessment of impact of POs on transparency of

national and EU policies, statistics, and overall national energy and climate policies.

Finally, the analysis of each PO interventions’ impact on Energy Union pillars has been implemented.

Baseline scenario: No policy change 8.2

The proposed baseline scenario assumes an unchanged continuation of existing planning, reporting and

monitoring obligations, and no introduction of new obligations by 2020. It also takes into account the

additional cost burden associated with changes and prolongation the legislations expiring on 2020.

The analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the baseline scenario is presented below.

Table 8-2 Strengths and weaknesses of the baseline scenario

Strengths Weaknesses

● No cost associated with development and introduction of an electronic reporting system

● All processes are well-established and proven

● Persistence of the currently observed inefficiencies in

the planning and reporting processes with the related administrative burden remaining at the current level

● Persistence of incoherencies (in terms of timing and among geographies and sectors) and overlaps

● Obsolete or not up-to-date obligations remain in effect and create extra burden

● Planning and reporting remains sector-specific ● Very limited overview of all planning and reporting

obligations

This scenario assumes that the overall the planning and reporting across all regulations will remain the

same with the administrative burden that is experienced now persisting. A detailed overview of

assumptions used in estimation of cost of implementation and annual administration in this PO is

presented in Annex I.

The impacts foreseen in the Baseline Scenario are summarised in the table below and details are

discussed further. It mirrors the current situation with reporting and planning analysed in the

Evaluation section of the present study (Part A).


122

Table 8-3 Impact expected in the Baseline Scenario

Category of Impact Types of impact analysed / indicators Summary of the analysis

DIRECT IMPACTS

Direct cost

Implementation costs

● Since 5 Directives and 3 regulations would expire in 2020, legislative changes would be needed in order to ensure their continuation beyond 2020. This results in the additional cost of around EUR 3.1 mln for the EC and EUR 10.7 mln for 28 MS

Administrative and reporting costs

● Will not change for ongoing obligations ● The total cost for MS is around EUR 4.15 mln

per year ● Total cost for EC (not estimated) will not

change

ICT / equipment cost ● No new ICT system is envisaged, thus no

change in cost ● Total MS’ cost is around EUR 8 mln per year

Service outsourcing cost ● Will not change for ongoing obligations ● Total MS’ cost is around 8.9 mln eur per

year Specific cost for companies ● Will not change for ongoing obligations

Direct benefit

Cost saving (in actions, ICT upgrade, etc.) ● No cost saving envisaged

Higher efficiency of reporting system ● No changes envisaged

Improved information quality ● No changes envisaged

Simpler and coherent reporting procedures ● No changes envisaged

Specific benefits for companies ● No changes envisaged

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Impact on policy

process

Transparency of national and EU policies ● No changes envisaged

Better statistics (EU, MS) ● No changes envisaged

Better national energy and climate policy ● No changes envisaged

Impacts on Energy Union

objectives


● No changes envisaged ● Some progress is expected due to ongoing

policy developments



policy developments Energy efficiency as a

contribution to the moderation of energy

demand

● No changes envisaged ● Progress is expected due to current policy

developments



policy developments

An Energy Union for Research, Innovation and

Competitiveness

● No changes envisaged without intervention

Direct Cost 8.2.1


Baseline scenario does not assume any new legislative obligations or amendments, however assumes the

additional cost burden associated with changes and prolongation the legislations expiring on 2020.

Section 3.2.7 presents the overview of the legislations and obligations that will go through the update

due to their expiration post 2020. Namely the following pieces of legislations will be updated:

• Directive 2009/28/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 Renewable Energy Directive;

• Directive 2010/31/EU Energy Performance of Buildings;

• Directive 2012/27/EU Energy Efficiency Directive;

• Directive 2013/30/EU Offshore Directive - The safety of offshore oil and gas operations;


123

• Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom, as amended by Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom

Nuclear safety of nuclear installations;

• Council Regulation 1368/2013 & Council Regulation 1369/2013 Union support for the nuclear

decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania;

• Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 Establishing the Connecting Europe Facility.

The cost associated with the update of these legislations will include the cost for revision and renewal

of these legislations which will be borne by the EC and the cost of transposition and implementation by

the EC. The main assumptions on these costs are presented in the table below (see also Annex I).

Table 8-4 Details on assumptions and estimations of implementation cost in Baseline scenario

Cost element Cost Components of the cost and assumptions For who

Revision and renewal legislation that expire in 2020 (5 Directives and 3 Regulations)

EUR 3,112,000

• Revision and renewal of the obligations - 2-6 person months of EC officer per legislations, average cost being EUR 336,000.

• Discussion of each legislation in a Working group including 4 EC officers and 28 MS representatives working for 1-2 months’ full time equivalent. Average cost EUR 1.2 mln66

• Translation into 23 MS languages and quality assurance per legislation per language being EUR 8,500 (incl. translation cost of EUR 2,500 and quality assurance cost legal experts EUR 6,000

EC

Transposition of Directives and implementation of Regulation that expire in 2020 in MSs

EUR 10,703,000

(total for 28 MSs)

Transposition of 5 EU Directives to national legislation: • 6-12 person months of MS public officer - EUR 3.5

mln • Discussion in an expert group (10-20 people, 5 days)

and adoption - EUR 1.8 mln • Public consultation (online or meeting) cost ranges

across MSs EUR 10,000 – 50,000, or total 28 MSs cost EUR 4.2 mln

Implementation of 3 regulations via ministerial order: • Development of the ministerial order (1-3 person

months): EUR 462,000 • Discussion in an expert groups (5-8 people, 5 days):

EUR 765,000

MS


If the current system continued there would not be any change in the ongoing administrative and

reporting activities, therefore no cost changes will take place besides the inflation. Estimates

presented here are based on the cost of the reporting and planning obligations in energy field

presented in the REFIT FC (see Section 4.1). With the consideration of the inflation67, by 2020 the total

MS costs for ongoing administration of reporting and planning will be around EUR 4.15 mln per year (see

also Table 9-1.

The administrative cost for the EC has not been estimated in this study due to lack of comprehensive

overview of the data on the actual cost born by the EC on each obligation.

66 EC officer monthly fee is estimated at EUR 6000; average monthly fee of a MS public servant is EUR 2750, based on Eurostat data 67 Annual inflation rate in EU28 for 2009-2015 from Eurostat HICP inflation rate, annual inflation rate in EU28 for 2016-2020 from http://www.statista.com/statistics/267908/inflation-rate-in-eu-and-euro-area/

http://www.statista.com/statistics/267908/inflation-rate-in-eu-and-euro-area/


124


Since no new electronic system is envisaged in this scenario the ICT / equipment costs will stay the

same. According to estimates acquired in this study (see Section 4.1), and with consideration of the

inflation by 2020 the annual costs of equipment and software will around to EUR 8 mln.


Costs of outsourcing and subcontracting in the activities related to planning and reporting obligations

will amount to EUR 8.3 mln per year by 2020. If the situation continues as defined in the baseline

scenario, there will be no changes in this cost over the years.


While the estimation of the reporting cost born by the companies was not part of this study, the survey

showed that many respondents agree that both the large companies and SMEs experience additional

reporting burden due to legislative obligations. This cost comes through a legal obligation stemming

from a specific legislation (e.g. ones addressing electricity and gas market), however this can also be a

non-binding information provision via a questionnaire organised by a national agency preparing a

report. In no-change situation the cost of reporting for companies is expected to remain on the same

level.

Direct benefits 8.2.2


Baseline scenario does not include any changes in the current reporting process and ICT system,

therefore no cost savings are expected to occur.


Baseline scenario is not expected to address the current duplications and incoherencies in the reporting

system, hence no notable improvements in the efficiency of reporting system can be expected. Some

small improvements may gradually happen due to the accumulating MSs and EC experience with the

reporting process and learning-by-doing.


There is no evidence that in case of no intervention the quality of information that is reported will

improve. However, it may well be the case that over time via informal feedback, gains of experience,

and overall improvement of the data presentation, the quality of information collected via reporting

will improve.

Simpler and coherent reporting procedures

No changes are expected in reporting procedures in the baseline scenario.


There will not be any additional benefits for companies if the reporting and planning system remains

unchanged.


125

Impact on policy processes 8.2.3

The transparency of national and EU policies, quality of statistics and overall improvement of national

energy and climate policy is not expected to change much over time in this PO. Some incremental

progress might be observed over time due to some small streamlining.


The energy reporting and planning obligations are currently seen as contributing to the transparency of

energy policy at national and EU level. The REFIT FC survey showed that the majority of MS respondents

agreed to this statement (68%). Interviews with MSs also confirmed this point for the current situation.

It is expected that this will not change post-2020, and that the current obligations will continue to

provide greater transparency of national policies.


Similar as for transparency, the current reporting and planning obligations are considered to contribute

to collecting better quality and more accurate data, as well as collecting data on issues that were

previously not measured. More than half of REFIT FC respondents confirm this statement as well as MS

and Commission interviewees. This situation is expected to continue post-2020 with the current system.


It is expected that the situation post-2020 will be similar to the current situation, if there is no policy

change. The REFIC FC survey among MSs showed that around 37% of respondents consider that

obligations have been important for national policy change (in particular in the energy field). The

interviewed respondents were divided on this issue, where respondents from some countries indicated

that the EU obligations do not significantly contribute to national energy policy making, while

respondents from some other countries indicated that they do contribute, at least partly. Under this

PO, this trend is expected to continue post-2020.

Impact on the Energy Union objectives 8.2.4

The objectives of the existing obligations have a good fit with the rationale for the Energy Union -

perhaps apart from nuclear energy related obligations, which could be fitted under “energy security,

solidarity and trust”.


The Energy Union Package sees the completion of the internal energy market and an increasing

efficiency in energy consumption as the key drivers of energy security.68 The existing obligations

include reporting and planning on both areas. The level of transparency and solidarity and trust, upon

which progress towards the energy security objectives is dependent, is not expected to change in this

PO.

The current obligations in the area of energy security bring either a moderate or a considerable

contribution to monitoring and assessment of energy supply and security. To reach the objectives for

energy security under the Energy Union package, the Commission has recently prepared a number of

changes to current reporting and planning obligations. In February 2016, the Commission has adopted a

68 COM(2015)80, Energy Union Package. A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy


126

liquefied natural gas (LNG) strategy, which requires reporting and planning that previously was not

covered by the Commission’s and Member States’ obligations. The cooperation between Member States

in responding to disruptions in gas supply needs to be strengthened. The reporting requirements on

nuclear installation projects under the Euratom Treaty (art. 41) will be updated and enhanced as well.

Regarding oil, the Oil Stocks Directive (2009/119/EC) already foresees obligations for Member States to

support security of supply.

In February 2016, the Commission also has adopted the revision of the Regulation on Security of Gas

Supply, as well as the Commission’s proposal for the gas strategy. The publication of a new Nuclear

Illustrative Programme in 2016 inform on nuclear investment needs.69 The changes to current planning

and reporting obligations, together with the existing reporting obligations under the Oil Stocks

Directive, are expected to support the achievement of the energy security objectives regarding gas,

nuclear energy and oil.


There are a number of issues that could be improved in the current functioning of the EU energy

market, most notably, regarding the level of investments, market concentration, weak competition and

a fragmented energy landscape.70

To improve cross-border electricity connections, the Commission has set a minimum interconnection

target of 10% of installed electricity production capacity which should be achieved by 2020. Existing

obligations under Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 for ACER (annual report) and the Commission (evaluation

in 2017) take stock of the progress towards this target. In 2016, the Commission will report on the

measures to reach the 15% target by 2030. This target could be reached with support of the existing

obligations, as the rationale for the 2030 target remains the same as the 2020 target.

The current obligations have shown to bring a moderate contribution to a longer term predictability of

the market, and hence improved investment climate in the energy sector. However, the contribution of

the current reporting obligations to better integration of national energy systems and cooperation

across Member States seems limited. To solve the issues described above and reach a fully-integrated

EU energy market, the current reporting obligations will need to be updated or complemented by new

obligations. Right now the obligations are not sufficient to report, plan and monitor the evolving

situation on better linking the wholesale and retail markets and developing markets to send the right

investment signals for developers of modern technologies. Legislative proposals to implement the new

market design are expected to be introduced in 2016,71 therefore it is expected that there could be

some progress towards this objective.

Energy efficiency as a contribution to the moderation of energy demand

The European Council set an indicative target at the EU level for improving energy efficiency for at

least 27% by 2030, which will be reviewed by 2020. There are already many measures in place that

support the progress towards this target. Planning and reporting obligations can be found in legislation

on energy labelling and ecodesign, energy efficiency in the buildings sector, and the Energy Efficiency

69 COM(2015)572, State of the Energy Union 2015 70 COM(2015)80, Energy Union Package. A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy 71 COM(2015)572, State of the Energy Union 2015


127

Directive. According to the Communication, ‘A policy framework for climate and energy in the period

from 2020 to 2030’72 and its Impact assessment, the transition to a low carbon economy will need

significant investments in energy efficiency, power grids, generation and innovation. Furthermore,

according to the State of the Energy Union (2015)73, a revision of the Energy Labelling Directive was

proposed in July 2015 to make energy labelling more efficient and improve enforcement. The

Commission remains optimistic that the 20% target can be achieved if existing EU legislation is correctly

and fully implemented.74 Moreover, in 2016, the Commission foresees legislative proposals to align the

Energy Efficiency Directive to the 2030 indicative EU-level target of at least 27% (to be reviewed by

2020). It is assumed that this legislation will support achieving the 2030 energy efficiency targets, just

like the current legislation is assumed to support reaching the 2020 targets. To reach these targets,

implementation at MS level should be followed up and if needed extra measures should be taken into

account.

Based on these foreseen changes, and without any policy intervention with regard to planning and

reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis, one can expect that there will be some progress towards

the Energy Union objective related to energy efficiency.


Climate policy is an integral part of the Energy Union. The EU's climate policy is based on greenhouse

gas reduction targets for both sectors within and outside of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).

Decarbonisation is also addressed by energy policy, aiming to increase the share of renewable energy

consumption in the EU.

The agreement on the 2030 climate and energy framework has defined a reduction of domestic

greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to the level of 1990. ETS will play a pivotal role in achieving

this target. The monitoring, reporting and verification of EU ETS emissions has been established in the

Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR)75 and Accreditation and Verification Regulation (AVR)76. For

sectors outside of the EU ETS, national targets still need to be set. Land and forestry will be

incorporated in the EU 2030 framework. It is therefore expected that the reporting and planning

obligations will support the achievement of the emission reduction target.

The EU has set a 27% target for the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU by 2030. The target

of 20% in 2020 is expected to be reached, but there are new challenges to reach the 2030 target as

energy markets and grids have to be fit for renewables.77 The new Renewable Energy Directive and the

bioenergy sustainability policy for 2030 is to be presented in 2016.78 This policy is expected to include

updated reporting and planning obligations that will support the achievement of the renewable energy

target in 2030.

72 COM (2014) 15 73 COM(2015)572, State of the Energy Union 2015 74 Ibid 75 Commission Regulation (EU) No. 601/2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 76 Commission Regulation (EU) No. 600/2012 on the verification of greenhouse gas emission reports and tonne-kilometre reports and the accreditation of verifiers pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 77 COM(2015)80, Energy Union Package. A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy 78 COM(2015)572, State of the Energy Union 2015


128

In both policies, planning and reporting play an important role to effectively monitor progress and

enhance cooperation between the MSs. The renewable energy target is relatively new and the EU ETS is

subject to changes, such as the introduction of the Market Stability Reserve (starting 2019) and the

revision of the ETS Directive, which has been proposed by the Commission in 2015.

An Energy Union for Research, Innovation and Competitiveness

Research and innovation (R&I) and competitiveness are important factors to accelerate the EU energy

transition. The Commission adopted a Communication ‘Towards an Integrated Strategic Energy

Technology (SET) Plan’ in September 2015, which provides a stimulus for the development and

deployment of low-carbon technologies in Europe.79 To support this trajectory, the Commission and the

European Investment Bank have set up several financing instruments, such as the InnovFin Energy

Demonstration Projects, Horizon 2020 Framework programme, Innovation Fund, Modernisation Fund,

etc.80

Without any further policy action towards the integration of R&I, competitiveness and energy, there is

a risk that this Energy Union objective might not be achieved. Integrated national energy and climate

plans addressing all five dimensions of the Energy Union are necessary for more strategic planning and

concerted policy actions for reaching the objective.81

Policy option 1: Soft guidance 8.3

The consulted stakeholders largely agree that Policy Option 1 is the easiest to implement. However,

they have diverse views on their preference for this option. The majority of the stakeholders see a need

for streamlining in planning and reporting obligations; they are open for more significant changes and

therefore are not in favour of PO1.

Those who are in favour of PO1 would prefer to have as rather little change in the reporting system,

which allows to avoid complexity to the current planning and reporting obligations. One of the

arguments in favour of PO1 builds on the fact that the agents dealing with specific obligations have

recently updated the reporting format and the process, and are not ready for another round of changes

that would require learning efforts. Or they do not see the value added of streamlining or using a single

electronic system for their specific obligation, because they are already using a specialised electronic

reporting system that fits their purpose. Another view put forward is that PO1 would be best suited as

qualitative assessments are important.

Many supporters of the PO1 (as well as PO2) welcome soft guidance, rather than a mandatory template,

to be able to better understand the type and level of data requested by the European Commission.

Many of them stated that the soft guidelines and templates are very helpful in preparing plans and

reports. They suggest that the comprehensive non-binding instrument could provide better guidelines to

the public administration on the best Energy Union governance performance. These stakeholders are

optimistic about voluntary templates being followed by a majority of Member States. Some proponents

suggest to start with non-binding guidance and discuss the practicality of the guidance and, as far as

necessary go further to obligations. Others think that it is very important for the MS to remain flexible

79 COM (2015) 6317 80 COM(2015)572, State of the Energy Union 2015 81 COM(2015)572, State of the Energy Union 2015


129

in designing the national plans. The guidance should therefore serve as a framework to which the MS

may refer, while the EC should rather monitor the plans and analyse the reports and noticing

inconsistencies request a modification.

However, the dominant majority of the consulted stakeholders tend to agree that PO1 is not desirable,

as they do not see strong drivers for streamlining and elimination of overlaps or redundant obligations.

Some stakeholders (both interviewed and participated in the online consultation) think it is

questionable whether a voluntary template would be followed by the Member States, although past

experience suggests that even voluntary templates or guidelines can help improve compliance. This is

seen as the main drawback of PO1. It is argued that if there is no legislative change, and since MSs have

already transposed the existing directives into their legislation, they will not change that because of a

non-mandatory recommendation by the EC.

There also more agreement on the view that Soft guidance scenario is not extended to generate much

improvements in coherence of national plans and reporting formats among all EU Member States,

effective and efficient implementation and monitoring of EU and international commitments in energy

and climate, confidence of investors and R&I competitiveness of European industries, achieving policy

objectives and enabling EC in advising and ensuring uniform application of EU legislation (see 8-1).

Based on the analysis and discussions with stakeholders a numbers of pros and cons of the PO1 have

been identified and presented in Table below.

Table 8-5 Strengths and weaknesses of PO1: Soft guidance Strengths Weaknesses

• Soft guidance and templates provide help to those stakeholders who will decide to adopt the changes towards streamlining

• Voluntary character of the guidance is appreciated by some national stakeholders

• Template will help in qualitative assessment in reporting

• Limited costs related to the introduction of changes; no major changes of procedures or processes

• No cost associated with electronic reporting system • Soft guidance and templates may also be useful for

co-ordination at the level of other bodies such as ACER

• MS are very flexible to adapt reporting and planning to national circumstances

• Flexibility in the balance between qualitative and quantitative assessments

• Not all MS will follow the soft guidance and template limiting the comparability of reporting and planning.

• Voluntary measures are not a strong driver in achieving comprehensive changes in planning and reporting system

• Risk of persisting incoherence in reporting due to lack of streamlining

• Persistence of higher administrative costs associated with inefficiencies and lack of change towards streamlining

• No increase in transparency of energy policies, investments, spending, safety, transparency of markets

• Very limited overview of all planning and reporting obligations


130

Figure 8-1: Expected impact of Policy option 1 – Stakeholders consultation results

The table below presents the summaries of the analysis on each expected impact in terms of

implementation and administrative costs and benefits for the monitoring system (seen as a direct

impact), the impact on the policy processes and contributions to policy objectives, while following

sections will provide more detailed analysis of each category of impact. A detailed overview of

assumptions used in estimation of cost of implementation and annual administration in this PO is

presented in Annex I.

Table 8-6 Summary of impacts expected in PO1: Soft guidance


DIRECT IMPACTS

Direct costs


● Since 5 Directives and 3 regulations would expire in 2020, legislative changes would be needed in order to ensure their continuation beyond 2020. This results in the additional cost of around EUR 3.1 mln for the EC and EUR 10.7 mln for 28 MS

● Cost of preparing the soft guidance and soft template by EC EUR 42,000

● Cost related to adoption of NECP by MS (EU total) around EUR 6.8 mln (provided all 28 MS develop NECP)


● Cost of planning and reporting on ongoing obligations, EUR 4.15 mln/year for EU28 MS

● Additional cost related to NECP planning and reporting, EUR 1.5 mln/year for EU28 MS

● Cost of EC on planning and reporting obligation (not estimated) will not change

ICT / equipment costs

● No new single electronic system is envisaged, thus no cost involved

● Total MS’ cost on ongoing ICT cost will not change, EUR 8mln/ year (same as in baseline option)

Service outsourcing costs ● Service outsourcing cost in the ongoing

obligations, MS total close to EUR 9 mln/ year (same as in baseline option)

Specific costs for companies

● The ongoing reporting cost will sustain ● No additional cost related to NECP is likely to

be created, as no legal requirements will be


131


put in place.

Direct benefits

Costs saving (in actions, ICT upgrade, etc.)

● No cost saving expected. The annual reporting cost on obligations will not change.

● The overall cost will be higher due to additional administrative burdens related to NECP planning and reporting (additional cost of EUR 1.5 mln/year is expected to add)

Higher efficiency of reporting system ● Slight negative impact is expected

Improved information quality ● No significant improvements are expected


● No simplification or improvement in coherence is expected due to lack of legislative push

Specific benefits for companies ● No benefits for companies are expected

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Impacts on policy

process


● It is expected that small improvements will happen (subject to the ambitions adopted in NECP)

Better statistics (EU, MS) ● Small positive impact expected ● Might add additional data from NECP


● Small positive impact due to the NECP as its aim is integration of national energy and climate policy

Impacts on Energy Union

objectives


● Small positive impact is expected due to improved coherence of planning obligations (subject to the ambitions adopted in NECP)

A fully-integrated internal energy market ● No noteworthy impact is expected

Energy efficiency as a contribution to the

moderation of energy demand

● Small positive impact expected (subject to the ambitions adopted in NECP)


● Small positive impact is expected (subject to the ambitions adopted in NECP)

Enhance R&I in low carbon technologies and helping to

finance these projects

● Small positive impact is expected (subject to the ambitions adopted in NECP)

Direct Cost 8.3.1

Implementation cost

PO1 assumes some activities on implementation of soft guidance of the EC on streamlining of the

reporting and planning obligation in the Member States along with the implementation of the new

NECP. According to many stakeholders consulted in this study the non-mandatory nature of the

guidance might results in non-uniform implementation of the national plans, partial adoption of

templates and a streamlining guidance. At the Member State level, the implementation cost will apply

only to the Member States who would voluntarily adopt such a template, consisting of preparing

material according to this template and guidance. Therefore, the cost might vary substantially

depending on the level of implementation by MSs. The extent to which the soft guidance will create an

additional administrative burden will depend on the content of the guidance document and template

and to what extent this matches to already available information at the Member State level.

Like in the Baseline scenario the cost of the updating of the legislation that expires in 2020 is taken into

account in estimating implementation cost in PO1 (see Annex I for overview of all assumptions). These

includes cost of update of 5 directives and 3 regulations borne by the EC and cost of transposition and

implementation in MS (see Table 8-7 below).


132

Furthermore, the implementation cost for the EC would also include preparing the soft guidance and

the template. The Commission has already been discussing this template and a guidance document

within the Energy Union governance framework.82 Consultation with the EC indicated that

approximately 6-8 person months’ effort of EC staff member will require preparation of the soft

guidance and the template, which translates into around EUR 42,000.

In estimation of a possible cost of adoption of NECP by the Member States, some references can be

drawn from the experience with the planning. In case the NECP is not implemented by all MSs this cost

can be lower. It was assumed that 6-10 public officers in MS will be involved for six months in the NECP

preparation. Additional cost is will be due to involvement of the expert group and publics consultations.

The overall cost for EU 28 on NECP preparation is estimated to be around EUR 6.8 mln.

Table 8-7 Details on assumptions and estimations of implementation cost in PO1

Cost element Cost Components of the cost and assumptions

Implementation cost for EC

EUR 3,154,000

Revision and renewal legislation that expire in 2020 (5 Directives and 3 regulations): • Revision and renewal of the obligations - 2-6 person months of

EC officer per legislation, average cost being EUR 336,000. • Discussion of each legislation in a Working group including 4 EC

officers and 28 MS representative working for 1-2 months’ full time equivalent. Average cost EUR 1.2 mln 83

• Translation into 23 MS languages and quality assurance per legislation per language being EUR8.500 (incl. translation cost of EUR 2,500 and quality assurance cost legal experts EUR 6,000

Development of the Soft guide and the template for NECP: • 6-8 person months’ equivalent effort, translated into around

EUR 42,000

Implementation cost for MSs EUR 17,479,000

(total for 28 MSs)

Transposition of 5 EU Directives to national legislation: • 6-12 person month of MS public officer - EUR 3.5 mln • Discussion in an expert group (10-20 people, 5 days) and

adoption - EUR 1.8 mln • Public consultation (online or meeting) cost ranges across MSs

EUR 10,000 – 50,000, or total 28 MSs cost EUR 4.2 mln Implementation of 3 regulations via ministerial order: • Development of the ministerial order (1-3 person months):

EUR 462,000 • Discussion in an expert groups (5-8 people, 5 days): EUR

765,000

Development and adoption of NECP • Preparation of the plan (effort of MS public officer and

experts) EUR 5.9 mln • Public consultation –EUR 20,000-40,000, or around EUR

840,000 for EU 28 MSs

82 DRAFT document on Key elements of MS’ NECP as part of the Energy Union Governance has been issued on 04.04.2016, provides national stakeholders with a guidance and draft template to start developing their integrated national energy and climate plans for the period 2021 to 2030. The study team did not discuss and assess with the stakeholders the proposed template, its possible cost of implementation, and likeliness of the MS to follow it if it comes as a soft guidance 83 EC officer monthly fee is estimated at EUR 6000; average monthly fee of a MS public servant is EUR 2750, based on Eurostatdata


133


With regard to the administrative and reporting costs for the Commission, estimations were possible

due to lack of comprehensive overview of costs on each obligation. However, there is no doubt that this

cost will not be different from the business as usual, as no changes to the current situation is expected.

At the Member State level, while the ongoing planning and reporting cost will largely remain (since the

obligation will still be there), there will be an additional cost due to new activities related to the

monitoring and reporting on the NECP.

Similar to the Baseline scenario, in this policy option, by 2020 the total MS costs for ongoing

administration of reporting and planning will be around EUR 4.15 mln per year, with the consideration

of the inflation84 (see also Table 9-1).

To estimate the average cost of the NECP related planning and reporting obligations in PO1, the

following assumptions have been taken:

• Annual reporting and planning effort per MS is estimated to be 3 person months.

• Monthly salary of a public servant across MS is around EUR 2,750 according to the Eurostat

statistics

• Since NECP related reporting and planning is voluntary, it was assumed that only half of the MS

will produce reports on NECP implementation.

A detailed overview of assumptions used in estimation of cost of implementation and annual

administration in this PO is presented in Annex I.

Based on this the estimated total EU28 cost of the NECP related annual reporting and planning is around

EUR 1.5 mln / year.


Since no new electronic system is envisaged in this scenario the ICT / equipment costs related to

ongoing obligation will remain at the estimate of around EUR 8 mln per year based on the estimated

given in the Baseline scenario.

No new single electronic system is envisaged in this PO, thus no additional related costs are included.


Under the soft guidance scenario, the activities related to the current obligations will not change,

therefore the outsourcing cost is expected to be similar to those in Baseline scenario (EUR 8.9

mln/year).

Additional cost might occur depending on whether consulting companies are involved in monitoring and

reporting on NECP. In the current assessment the subcontracting activities were not included, as for the

simplicity and consistency of calculation we assume that only the public official will be involved in

preparing NECP planning and reporting. In case the MS will use subcontracting in NECP planning and

reporting, there will be a shift of the cost assumed for the MS public officers to the subcontracting of

84 Annual inflation rate in EU28 for 2009-2015 from Eurostat HICP inflation rate, annual inflation rate in EU28 for 2016-2020 from http://www.statista.com/statistics/267908/inflation-rate-in-eu-and-euro-area/

http://www.statista.com/statistics/267908/inflation-rate-in-eu-and-euro-area/


134

external consultants. This might also slightly increase the overall administrative cost on planning and

reporting activities, but the magnitude will vary across the countries due to varied cost of external

consultant services.


In case of the soft guidance scenario the impact in terms of additional reporting burden on industrial

actors, companies and SMEs is not obvious. The overall ongoing obligations related cost is expected to

remain, while depending on the NECP monitoring needs there is a chance that the national reporting

agency would require new information from companies, thus imposing an extra burden on them.

However, it is most likely that the data and information reported under the ongoing obligations might

be sufficient to fulfil the reporting needs of NECP. Also the absence of the legal requirements for

companies to report for NECP will likely to ensure that no or minimal reporting cost will be imposed on

companies.



No cost savings in the planning and reporting processes can be expected from the PO1. PO1 will rather

result in additional expenditure due to the added administrative burden related to NECP planning and

reporting estimated to be around EUR 1.5 mln/ year.


The overall reporting and planning cost in the PO1 will increase due to introduction of the NECP related

reporting and planning. At the same time the analysis on the benefits is rather mixed for PO1 with

perceived small positive contributions for policy objectives and no impact on the reporting processes.

Stakeholders have highly diverging opinions on this issue. One part of stakeholders is convinced that, if

PO1 foresees the existing obligations remaining legally binding, the planning and reporting will continue

with the same inefficiencies and associated administrative burden. Others hold the view that soft

guidance is appreciated and would be followed as it reduces MSs time and effort to understand what

needs to be provided, in particular for obligations that require qualitative assessments. Yet in terms of

numbers, only some 13% of respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation hold the opinion that PO1

will lead to improvement or considerable improvement in more efficient implementation of EU energy

and climate legislation, while around 46% believe it will imply deterioration or significant deterioration

in efficiency. Taking into account these aspects, very limited positive impact and the fact that the PO1

will not generate cost savings, the cumulative impact of PO1 on efficiency of reporting system is

assessed as slightly negative.


There are no strong views on whether the soft guidance in PO1 would improve the quality of reported

information. Stakeholders do think that NECP might help with more structured presentation of the

information and data on the Energy Union pillars, collection of additional data, indicators, and

information that would enrich the monitoring process. At the same time, soft guidance would also

enable MSs to properly take into account their national context and specificities, hence presenting a

more accurate picture of realities in the various energy systems. Though generally most stakeholders do

not think that PO1 will lead to better possibilities for monitoring performance from an aggregated EU

perspective. Only 17% of respondents to EC online consultation believe that this PO will lead to

improvement or significant improvement in this area, while 44% consider that under this scenario


135

monitoring possibilities will deteriorate or significantly deteriorate. Given the evidence, the cumulative

impact of PO1 on better information quality is not expected to bring any significant change in

comparison to the baseline option.


There are no firm conclusions weather PO1 would simplify the reporting and improve its coherence. Any

improvements are dependent on the extent to which MSs agree to follow soft guidance. Some

stakeholders are certain that clearer guidance on the existing reporting requirements (e.g.

development of templates, guidance documents on how to use the templates) is sufficient to improve

the coherence. Soft guidance and templates may also be useful for coordination at the level of other

bodies such as ACER. Other stakeholders hold strong opinions that no substantial streamlining will occur

under PO1 scenario. The results of the EC online consultation highlights that only around 20% of

respondents think that PO1 will lead to improvement or significant improvement for coherence of

national plans and reporting formats, while 44% consider the opposite. Overall, PO1 is not expected to

simplify the current reporting system, as there is no legislative push for these changes. The soft

guidance is not likely to help in changing the situation as the current obligation will sustain under the

current legislations, hence overall no impact is expected on improving the coherence.


There are no obvious direct benefits for companies in PO1. A more in-depth appraisal of the possible

benefits would require further investigation.


The impact on policy processes of PO1 is not clear as it has to be based on specific assumptions such as

the scope and ambitions of the NECP. Interviewees in the study also had difficulties assessing this

impact. They suggest that the scope and ambitions of NECP would also define whether the

new/additional indicators are introduced to help the monitoring of NECP. In sum, some changes might

be expected due to the implementation of the NECP, but this is subject to the design and activity scope

of the NECP, as well as the monitoring system/indicators adopted by the plan.


It is not clear if the PO1 can improve the transparency of national and EU policies vis-a-vis the baseline

option. From REFIT FC interviews, there were no firm views on how the activities related to a new

NECP might contribute to better transparency; this is subject to the ambitions and activities to be

committed within this plan. Under this policy option, some streamlining will take place based on the

voluntary guidance and template for NECPs, however, the existing sectoral legislation with all the

obligations will stay in place post-2020. Hence, depending on what will be included in this integrated

plan, more transparency could be envisaged, in particular, if additional indicators/ obligations are

introduced in this plan and/or if the synergies between integrated information will provide improved

transparency. It is expected that the aim of NECPs is not to increase the number of obligations or the

level of detail of reported information, but rather to streamline the existing ones. Since the current

obligations will continue to apply, and NECPs are expected to streamline and integrate part or all

current obligations, only small positive changes on transparency are expected under this policy option.


136


Similar to the impact on transparency, it is not obvious if the adoption of soft guidance improves the

quality and coherence of statistics, as the existing obligations will stay in place. It will again depend on

what is included in the NECPs, and whether this requires further data collection on the side of the MS

or EU or merely an integration of the existing ones. Several stakeholders in the EC online consultation

mentioned improved comparability of collected data as one of the positive impacts of PO1, without

bringing additional administrative burden on the public authorities and other stakeholders. Overall,

since the aim of NECP is integration, it is expected that small improvements will be made under this

PO. These positive improvements are due to the improved comparability of collected data based on the

new template.


To a certain extent the introduction of NECPs might give some push for revising the existing national

energy and climate policies. However, it is not clear whether the changes in the reporting system

across regulations based on soft guidance will provide a strong enough basis for better policy making, as

the current obligations will remain in place. This was also the view of some of REFIC FC interviewees.

Some responses to the EC stakeholder consultation also point out that a soft template and guidance will

be the best way to improve the Energy Union governance framework and its performance due to the

flexibility it offers with regard to diverse national circumstances. Since the NECP is expected to bring

about some positive changes with regard to better (=more integrated) national energy and climate

policy, it is expected that PO1 will have a small positive impact on this aspect vis-a-vis the baseline.


It is not foreseen that this PO will bring significant impact on the Energy Union objectives compared to

the baseline option, as the current and planned legislation is expected to remain valid post-2020. The

voluntary template and guidance document cannot bring about major changes without further

legislative action. This has been reflected also in the results of the EC stakeholder consultation, where

only a few respondents believe that PO1 would have a (considerable) improvement on the achievement

of the EU energy and climate objectives without further legislative changes. The majority of

respondents believe there will be deterioration or significant deterioration in this respect under this

PO. On the other hand, those that prefer PO1 argue that legislative changes will be detrimental to

improving progress towards the 2030 targets, as they will impose additional costs, obligations and

rigidity on the Member States without significantly improving the benefits of reaching the Energy Union

objectives. According to them, the soft approach is the best to unite and cover all the Energy Union

objectives as there is already existing legislation in some of the fields (e.g. renewable energy, energy

efficiency), while some of them still remain primarily within the Member States’ competences (e.g.

R&I, energy security, energy policy formation). Legislative changes would go too far in the direction of

centralised policy planning and away from national sovereignty in the energy sector.


The impact on energy security is conditional on the extent to which this area will be integrated in the

NECP, which is dependent on each country’s initiative (there is no legal obligations to follow soft

guidance). Aside from reporting statistical data, important obligations for MSs under the security of

supply include the elaboration of Preventive Action Plans, Emergency Plans and Risk Assessments for

gas supply. As the responses to the Public Consultation (2015) of the revision of Regulation 994/2010

has shown, in the baseline scenario this comprehensive qualitative strategy and planning documents


137

overall have lacked sufficient analytical rigour and have failed also to take into account the cross-

border impact of national risk mitigation measures. REFIT FC interviews have revealed that MSs

welcome more detailed template from EC and expressed the views that soft guidance would generally

be followed. These interview results also denote that soft guidance may have more impact on national

security of supply policies in Eastern European countries that mainly do not have well-established policy

approaches in this area, rather than in Western European countries. Overall, soft guidance can be

expected to have some positive impact on the security of supply, yet without legislative changes it will

remain low.


Provided the non-mandatory nature of the EC guidance, it is not guaranteed that any provisions for

monitoring the EU energy markets will be taken on board across all EU MSs. Furthermore, the provisions

of NECP on this issue might vary from country to country, while energy market integration would need

to be based on cross-country cooperation. Therefore, it is more likely that no significant improvements

will take place under PO1 in comparison to the business as usual scenario that assumes some legislative

and policy changes that address objectives of the integrations of the EU energy market. As discussed in

the baseline these developments can steer some progress towards the energy market integration, but

the soft interventions assumed in PO1 are not likely to add to even higher outcomes.


Energy efficiency objective will be certainly integrated in NECP, in particular in order to support

reaching the 2030 energy efficiency framework target. Since the energy efficiency legislation covers a

variety of topics and objectives, the impact under this policy option will depend on which specific

national objectives are covered in this plan and in what form (for example, whether the current

National Energy Efficiency Action Plans are fully integrated in NECP or not). Since the existing

obligations will remain in the sectoral legislation, without further legislative changes the cumulative

impact of PO1 is expected to be low, even if some Member States will adopt this voluntary plan. From

REFIT FC interviews and desk research it is apparent that MSs are willing to follow voluntary plans, the

main challenge is the lack of any legislative change, which implies that the administrative burden and

the level of detail of information collected and reported on via the energy efficiency legislation will

remain high. All in all, the progress towards the Energy Union energy efficiency objectives resulted in

PO1 will be comparable with the progress seen in the baseline.


The NECP should have some positive impact on addressing climate change and increasing renewable

energy. Similar to energy efficiency, it is expected that these topics will be tackled in the voluntary

template and guidance document, as they are directly relevant for the 2030 energy targets. Moreover,

currently there is no integration of climate and energy obligations, hence climate change is not fully

tackled by the EU energy acquis obligations. One respondent in the EC stakeholder consultation stressed

the fact that soft approach as opposed to legislative approach would be better to bring further the

decarbonisation of the economy as the latter would impose costly and inefficient solutions at the EU

level, without leaving the MSs enough freedom to take into account their national context and

specificities to reach their own decarbonisation target. Soft guidance and NECP template and

integrated plan should improve this situation.


138


Introduction of an integrated energy and climate plan along the other four dimensions of the Energy

Union will have a positive impact on reaching this Energy Union objective. As mentioned in the State of

the Energy Union 2015, the NECP will be a necessary tool to have more strategic planning.85 This is

particularly relevant for the R&I and competitiveness area as this objective is under-represented in the

current planning and reporting obligations. The current system links with this objective only indirectly

as a support mechanism (see chapter 3).

The REFIT FC interviews and MSs survey did not provide strong views on whether PO1 would be

expected to generate impact on this objective. However, the EC stakeholder consultation showed that

only a few respondents indicated that PO1 would have a (considerable) improvement on increased

certainty for investors stimulating economic growth as well as R&I and competitiveness. The majority of

respondents believe there will be deterioration or significant deterioration in this respect under this

policy option. Yet since it is expected that the MSs are likely to adopt this voluntary NECP template and

EC guidance, and that current reporting and planning system does not sufficiently integrate R&I and

competitiveness objective, a small positive impact under PO1 is expected, without further legislative

changes.

Policy option 2: sectoral legislation 8.4

Policy Option 2 is the second most attractive option among the consulted stakeholders, both via REFIT

FC interviews and online consultation conducted by the EC.

The specificity of this PO is that it includes a clear set of activities on streamlining of planning and

reporting obligations via a revision of these obligations in the legislative texts. At the same time the

MSs and other agencies would receive the soft guidance with a reporting template for a new planning

and reporting system. The latter was found to be one of the attractive features in this policy option by

selected stakeholders (both in interviews and in online consultation). Several stakeholders, both from

the EU institutions and the MS (interviewed and consulted online) argued that mandatory templates can

impose a higher administrative burden on reporting actors in comparison to the voluntary soft guidance.

Therefore, the voluntary templates and the guidance from the EC in combination with some flexibility

are well appreciated by some MSs as this can help them not to waste effort inventing something from

scratch, and at the same time avoid significant efforts in complying with obligations. Several

stakeholders concluded that in this PO, the EC guidelines would be followed even if they were not

mandatory, also because they will need to follow the amended obligations. They stressed that EC

guidelines would enable them to get an accurate idea of the type and level of data to be provided

under the amended obligations. It would also help to build the structure of the reporting and agree on

the level of granularity as this is very often the subject of internal debates. Hence the existence of

clear templates would decrease the cost of planning and reporting for MSs under the updated sectoral

legislations. On the contrary, if a template is not easy to understand, it requires more time to fill in. It

was suggested that the template should be simple and relevant, and not contain elements that are

‘reporting for the sake of reporting’. It should give enough guidance but also flexibility and ensure a

win-win for both the EC and the MS.

85 COM (2015) 572


139

Another argument of the PO2 supporters is based on their positive assessment of the current sectoral

legislation regarding the progress toward energy policy targets. They say that the existing instruments

(RED, EED and ESD) already contain the building blocks necessary for a robust governance for the 2030

targets, while integrating all obligations into one single plan would produce a huge, unmanageable

document, which risks reducing the level of clarity and detail currently provided by Member States.

Among the drawbacks of PO2 is the fact that the implementation of the interventions suggested in the

PO would take a long time, as each piece of legislation would have to be revisited one by one in order

to introduce changes in reporting and planning obligations with the purpose of streamlining them across

all legislations.

Another challenge in the PO2 is how to get a comprehensive picture of streamlining across many

obligations which would still stay under separate legislations and eventually brought to a shape where

all contribute to one report addressing Energy Union subjects. Getting the model with all (or almost all)

obligations working towards one comprehensive report is a serious task requiring substantial analysis

and efforts.

Table 8-8 Strengths and weaknesses of PO2: Sectoral legislation Strengths Weaknesses

• Soft guidance and templates provide support to stakeholders in implementing changes in sectorial legislation and in adopting the new planning and reporting system

• Templates will also be useful for qualitative assessments

• Non-mandatory templates leave flexibility to adapt to national circumstances

• Soft guidance will help to reduce cost of adoption of changes

• Significant streamlining due to the systematic nature of changes/amendments in legislations

• In the long run reduced administrative burden and cost due to increased efficiency and reduced overlaps

• Increased efficiency, transparency, flow of information due to the use of an electronic reporting system

• Enhanced comparability of MS reports

• Electronic reporting systems allows for interactive elements, e.g. support functions

• Time consuming process in amending each legislation separately. The process may take very long time due to separate amendment procedures for each piece of legislation.

• High costs associated with amending each legislation separately

• Increased cost of coordination across several national actors who will be contributing to a single report

• Resistance from the stakeholders who do not see added value in amending the legislations

• Additional cost associated with introducing an electronic reporting system

• Additional cost of implementing and adopting the new system

• Costs related to maintenance of electronic reporting system

• Reduced flexibility in adapting to national circumstances

• Limited overview of all planning and reporting obligations

• Risk that not all changes to the sectorial legislations maybe adopted by Parliament and Council, which would jeopardise the plan

• Additional burden associated with risks and complexities in the reporting and planning due to less structured coordination across many obligations in feeding onto NECP

The EC stakeholder consultation and discussion with the representatives of the MSs, EC and the EU

institutions, suggested a more significant impact in various categories (as compared to baseline and the

PO1). Estimation of cost to be born in the PO2 showed some changes in the cost structure (see

discussion below), with reductions in the ongoing cost, but introduction of additional costs related to

NECP and electronic reporting system.


140

Figure 8-2: Expected impact of Policy Option 2 – Stakeholders consultation results

The table below summarises the expected impacts of this PO, while following sections will provide

more detailed analysis of each category of impact. A detailed overview of assumptions used in

estimation of cost of implementation and annual administration in this PO is presented in Annex I.

Table 8-9 Summary of the impacts expected in PO2: Sectorial legislations


DIRECT IMPACTS

Direct cost

Implementation cost

• Substantial cost associated with revising/ amending reporting and planning provisions in relevant pieces of legislation (by EC) - EUR 9 million in total

• Transposition and implementation costs, including cost the NECP adoption - around EUR 36 mln in total for EU 28 MS.


• Cost of planning and reporting on ongoing obligations will decrease due to abolishment or integration of a number of obligations, estimate EUR 3.57 mln/year in total 28 MS.

• Additional cost related to NECP planning and reporting cost, EUR 5.54 mln /year

• Cost of EC on planning and reporting obligation (not estimated) is expected reduce due to abolishment or integration of a number of obligations


• New electronic system introduction (one time cost)86:

o New system EUR 5 mln OR o Integration into existing system EUR

50,000 • Additional annual cost of maintenance of the

system EUR 100,000 /year • ICT cost for all obligations will be slightly higher in

comparison to other options (EUR 9.6 mln/year) due to additional cost related to risks associated with the PO2


• The total cost of outsourcing will increase despite abolishment or integration of a number of

86 Based on the references to the maintenance cost of Reporting Obligation Database of EEA and MNE NIF database run by EC. Data collected via interview with EEA and EC representatives dealing with these databases.


141


obligations, due to the risks and complexities in PO2. Estimate is EUR 10.6 mln/year in EU 28 MS


• Changes in the obligations might result is simpler procedures for companies

• Depending on the NECP monitoring needs companies might be required to report new information/data

Direct benefit

Cost saving (in actions, ICT upgrade,

etc.)

● No total cost saving expected. Rather the total cost will be overspent due to additional administrative cost related to NECP and new electronic system (additional cost EUR 19.4 mln/year against baseline and PO1)

● 14% of cost saving expected in annual reporting and planning in MS in comparison to the baseline and PO1


● Due to the excessively high cost of this PO and the arguably moderate cumulative benefit, the overall efficiency is assessed to be very low

Improved information quality ● Some positive impact due to better coherence


● Strong positive impact over time due to the new electronic reporting and amendments


● Changes in the obligations might result is simpler procedures for companies

● However it is not clear if it will steer companies to more sustainable modes of activities

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Impact on

policy process

Transparency of national and EU

policies

● Some positive impact due to legislative changes supporting integrated plans


● Positive impact due to single electronic system (improved efficiency, data comparability), but not uniformly across the EU

● Might add additional data from NECP Better national

energy and climate policy

● Small positive impact due to NECP supported by legislative changes and better data supply

Impacts on

Energy Union

objectives


● Small positive impact due to gathering of information under NECPs and reduced information asymmetries in planning obligations

A fully-integrated internal energy

market

● Limited positive impact due to improved collaboration in energy markets



● Due to legislative changes in the sectoral legislation moderately high positive impact is expected

● The impact will depend on the content of the NECP


● Due to legislative changes in the sectoral legislation small positive impact is expected



● Due to legislative changes in the sectoral legislation moderately high positive impact is expected


Direct cost 8.4.1

Implementation cost

A higher than in other POs implementation cost is expected to be on the side of the EC for revising/

amending the sectoral legislation and for coordinating and streamlining across obligations in many

pieces of legislation via guidelines. In particular, the former is a time consuming process and may be

very long time-wise. Based on the study recommendations 19 out of total 31 pieces of legislations to be

amended (due to repeal or integration of the obligations into NECP). This includes 11 directives, 6

regulations, 2 decisions. In addition, there will be an update of two legislations that expire in 2020

(Directive 2009/71 and Regulations 1368/69/2013). It is assumed that the remaining ten pieces of

legislation will not be revised in this PO, bearing no implementation cost, however the reporting and

planning cost (discussed in next sub-section) is considered. Further details of assumptions used in this

PO are presented in Annex I.


142

Based on the EC experience it was estimated that the average cost per revision and amending the

legislation will cost between EUR 12,000 to EUR 72,000. Further costs include discussion of amendments

in the EC lead working groups, public consultations and translation of amended legislations into all EU

languages.

It is very likely that the working group discussions of these legislations will be grouped into thematic

groups, rather than launching an individual working group discussion on each legislation. It is assumed

that there will be six thematic groups following the thematic objectives of the Energy Union (split also

used in this study). Each working group will involve EC officials and representatives of 28 Member States

working for 4-8 months’ full time equivalent.

Online or physical event based public consultation will be organised for each of the six thematic groups

of legislation. The cost can range between EUR 40,000 to EUR 80,000 per one public consultation, or

around EUR 360,000 for six consultations.

The translation and followed up quality assurance effort suggested to be around EUR 8,500 per

legislation will translates into a substantial cost of over EUR 4 mln in total for all EU languages and 21

pieces of legislation.

The EC will incur an initial cost for preparing the voluntary soft template, same as in policy option 1.

This cost is not considered to be lower than in PO1 since there is no development of the guidance.

Implementation cost to be borne by the MS will include transposition and implementation cost for 21

pieces of legislation (12 Directives, 7 regulations and 2 decisions). This includes cost for transposition

for the Directives and implementation of regulations and decisions via Ministerial order and followed up

discussion in expert groups and public consultations of the revisited legislations. The details on the cost

(total for 28 MSs) of each of these activities is presented in the table below.

MS will also have a cost for development of the NECP, which will require more effort than in PO1. NECP

in PO2 is expected to be more comprehensive and detailed, as well as have larges coverage of

indicators and information than in PO1. It will have to take into consideration the sectorial legislations

and the streamlining process to be done via revision the individual legislations. The total 28 MSs cost for

NECP preparation will be around EUR 9.7 mln (see details in the table below).

Table 8-10 Details on assumptions and estimations of implementation cost in PO2


Implementation cost for the EC EUR 9,004,500

Revision of 21 legislations (including the ones expiring in 2020): • Revision and renewal of the obligations - 2-6 person

months of EC officer per legislations, total cost being EUR 882,000.

• Discussion of legislations in six working group including 4 EC officers and 28 MS representative working for 4-8 months’ full time equivalent. Total cost EUR 3.6 mln 87

• Six public consultation total cost EUR 360,000 • Translation of 21 legislations into 23 MS languages and

quality assurance total cost EUR 4.1 mln

87 EC officer monthly fee is estimated at EUR 6000; average monthly fee of a MS public servant is EUR 2750, based on Eurostat data


143


Development of the template for NECP by the EC will require 3-4 person months equivalent, or around EUR 21,000

Implementation cost for MSs EUR 36,078,000

(total for 28 MSs)

Transposition of 12 EU Directives to national legislation: • 6-12 person months of MS public officer - EUR 8.3 mln • Discussion in an expert group (10-20 people, 5 days) and

adoption - EUR 4.4 mln • Public consultation (online or meeting) cost ranges across

MSs EUR 10,000 – 50,000, or total 28 MS cost EUR 10.1 mln Implementation of 7 regulations and 2 decisions via ministerial order for 28 MSs: • Development of the ministerial order: EUR 1.4 mln • Discussion in an expert groups: EUR 2.3 mln

Development and adoption of NECP • Preparation of the plan (10 months’ equivalent effort of

MS public officer and experts) EUR 8.4 mln • Public consultation –EUR 30,000-60,000, or around EUR 1.2

mln for EU 28 MSs


The administrative annual cost of reporting and planning on obligations will decrease due to

streamlining, abolishment and integration of some obligations. Estimation of the cost was based on the

scope of MS obligations, for which cost analysis has been done (see section 4.1). The following

assumptions have been deployed in estimations of the planning and reporting cost in PO2 scenario:

• Based on the recommendation of this study (see section 5.6) 23 pieces of MS obligation to be

integrated into NECP, 4 obligations to be repealed, 19 obligations will stay unchanged and

separate from NECP;

• Annual planning/reporting (as well as outsourcing cost) of obligations that are integrated in the

NECP will decrease by 50%;

• All costs associated with repealed obligations will be zero;

• All costs associated with obligation that stay separate from NECP will not change;

All countries will bear additional annual cost of NECP related planning and reporting.

In addition, one can expect the extra burden associated with risks and complexities in the reporting and

planning due to lack of coordination across many obligations in feeding onto NECP. The factoring this

risk is assumed to increase the reporting and planning cost by 15-25%. This was taken into consideration

in calculation of the cost.

Based on these assumptions it was estimated that the obligations related planning and reporting costs

for all 28 MSs will be around EUR 3.6 mln/year, which is EUR 0.5 mln lower in comparison to baseline

scenario (see also Table 9-1).

At the same time preparing a single national report will become a common practice for all MS in PO2

due to the legislative requirements. It is also most likely that the non-mandatory nature of the

templates will not be an obstacle or leave any disincentive for a full scale application of it by the MS,

since it will be a practical instrument assisting in meeting the new reporting and planning requirements

introduced at the legislations. Preparation of a single national report will require a substantial

administrative effort on coordination activities across all obligation. This has been also highlighted by

several stakeholders consulted via interviews and online questionnaire. The coordination cost will be


144

born at each MS and will come along with the activities on preparation of a centralised national report

on NECP (see also Annex J for assumption details).

Approximate estimates of the effort and cost of the coordination activity in each country can be based

on the average of 9 person months’ work of 6-9 national public officials preparing the national report

on NECP. This will translate into on average EUR 5.5 mln /year88 for EU28 total. (see Table 9-1).


In estimation of the MS born annual ICT/ equipment cost it was assumed that this cost for both

maintained and integrated into NECP obligations will not change because MS will continue using their

systems for collecting information, independent of whether this obligation now feeding the central

report or not. ICT cost for repealed/abolished obligations is zero. Based on these assumptions, the

estimated cost born by EU28 MS will be EUR 9.6 mln/year, which higher than in the PO1 and the

baseline due to factoring the extra risk costs.

Since PO2 assumes the introduction of an electronic reporting system, it is expected that there will be

a cost of developing a model/structure for it, as well as for the software development or acquisition.

Investigation of the cost of the existing electronic reporting systems of similar scope89 showed that the

cost of development/buying of a new system will reach EUR 5-6 mln. However, if the electronic

reporting is integrated into one of the existing electronic reporting system (e.g. e-Damis, EMOS), the

cost will be lower as it will be limited to integration activities (e.g. EUR 50,000 – 75,000). 90

EC will have an additional cost for maintenance of the centralised electronic system, which will about

around EUR 100,000/year.91


As discussed above it was assumed that the annual outsourcing costs of obligations that are integrated

in the NECP will decrease by 50%, the cost of ones repealed will be zero, the cost of the ones

maintained will not change. Based on these assumptions it was estimated that the total cost of

outsourcing all obligations will be EUR 10.6 mln /year, which EUR 1.6 mln higher than in the PO1 and

the baseline due to factoring (+20%) the extra risk costs.

As mentioned in PO1, in the current assessment the subcontracting activities were not included, as for

the simplicity and consistency of calculation we assume that only the public official will be involved in

preparing NECP planning and reporting. In case the MS will use subcontracting in NECP planning and

reporting, there will be a shift of the cost assumed for the MS public officers to the subcontracting of

external consultants. This might also slightly increase the overall administrative cost on planning and

reporting activities, but the magnitude will vary across the countries due to varied cost of external

consultant services.

88 Assumption is based on average salary of EUR 2.750 based on the national statistics from Eurostat. 89 Reporting Obligation Database of EEA and MNE NIF 90 interview with EEA and EC representatives dealing with the databases. 91 Based on the references to the maintenance cost of Reporting Obligation Database of EEA and MNE NIF database run by EC. Data collected via interview with EEA and EC representatives dealing with these databases.


145


The analysis and discussions of the implications of the introduction of the changes in sectorial

legislations, showed that in overall there might be some impact on the cost for companies. It was

suggested that the cost to industrial players might reduce thanks to reduced requirements under the

renewed obligations. It is expected that the changes will result in simpler or more efficient process in

data collection from companies. At the same time some foresee a possible need for new data and

information, but this would depend on the ambitions, goals and needs of the new NECP.



Estimates demonstrated that the changes in the PO2 will not reduce the overall cost of planning and

reporting. The cost will be EUR 8.3 mln/year more expensive than in the baseline scenario. Despite the

14% decrease in the cost for annual planning reporting and subcontracting on ongoing obligations due to

repeal and integration, the additional costs associated with NECP and electronic reporting system will

boost the overall cost up. This also includes the additional cost related to extra burden associated with

risks and complexities in the reporting and planning due to less structured coordination across many

obligations feeding into NECP.


Based on the presented above as well as in Table 9-1 cost figures, it was estimated that the total

annual cost of the PO2 (reporting, subcontracting, equipment and NECP) would be the highest among

all POs (EUR 29 mln against EUR 20 mln in PO3b, EUR 22 mln in PO3a and close to EUR 23 mln in PO1).

This fact strongly deteriorates the cost-efficiency of the overall planning and reporting system in this

scenario. Excessively high cost of the implementation will also make the cost recovery in the long run

even more difficult. While one has to acknowledge that the changes introduced by PO2 are expected to

lead to reduced overlaps and streamlining of the reporting and planning procedures in comparison to

the current situation and PO1, the additional burdensome cost associated with coordination and feeding

the inputs from sectorial obligations to NECP will prevent from reducing the overall reporting and

planning cost. The process of adaptation will be lengthy, hence the general view of stakeholders on the

contribution of this PO2 to higher efficiency is not unequivocal. It also must be borne in mind that risk

remains that sectorial legislations maybe not be adopted by Parliament and Council, which would

jeopardise the NECP.

The views of the stakeholders on the potential efficiency improvement in PO2 is mixed. From the

overall pool of respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation, 32% think that PO2 will lead to

improvements in effective and efficient implementation of EU legislation in the energy and climate

field and 33% consider there will be no change. In comparison, only 10% of the respondents hold the

opinion that PO2 will lead to deterioration or significant deterioration in the efficiency and legislation

implementation.


Overall, the information and data quality channelled via reports is expected to improve due to better

coherence across obligations, the guidance provided and the structured nature of the electronic

system. While some stakeholders maintain that data and information quality in different countries

would vary due to the non-mandatory nature of the reporting templates, others hold the view that

exactly the non-binding nature of the templates will leave MSs flexibility to adapt to national


146

circumstances, hence providing a more precise and realistic picture of the state of national energy

systems. Respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation consider that generally PO2 will lead to

improvements or significant improvements in possibility to monitor performance and trends (35%) or

will lead to no substantial change in this aspect (31%). Only 9% hold the view that this scenario will lead

to deterioration or significant deterioration in the ability to monitor performance and trends in

achieving Energy Union objectives. Bearing in mind the risk of non-adoption of amendments to sectorial

legislation, the cumulative impact of PO2 on improved information quality can be judged as positive,

but not very strongly positive.

Simpler and more coherent reporting procedures

It can be expected that simpler and more coherent reporting procedures will be achieved in a long run

as a result of the legislation streamlining and the new electronic reporting system that will contribute

to transparency and clearer flow of information. The built-in functionality of the electronic reporting

system (e.g. ‘help’ option) can be expected to increase the comparability of MSs reports. Yet the

extent of this coherence is subject to the actual implementation of the non-binding guidance by MSs.

Respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation consider that generally PO2 will lead to improvements

or significant improvements in coherence of national plans and reporting formats (35%) or it will not

lead to a substantial change from the current situation (31%). Only 9% hold the view that this scenario

will lead to deterioration or significant deterioration in the coherence of reporting obligations.


The discussion with stakeholders and the analysis suggests that the specific benefits for companies

could relate to the reduced reporting burden due to more coherent and streamlined obligations. The

reduction of duplication and redundancies would certainly benefit this. However, without a targeted

additional in-depth investigation it is not clear if the changes would also generate wider positive spill-

overs like better monitoring of energy use, carbon footprint and other aspects of environmental

performance.


The impact on policy processes under this PO is expected to be moderate vis-a-vis the baseline (and

higher than under PO1) as legislative changes will take place and a single electronic reporting system is

expected to be introduced. The templates and guidance documents will remain voluntary as in PO1,

however, the sectoral legislation will be amended to support the NECP. The risk of non-adoption of

sectorial legislation though remains and cannot be ruled out. PO2 increases the number of MS who will

adopt this voluntary template due to the legislative changes, which is expected to have more visible

impact on policy processes than in PO1. The voluntary template will have a better legal standing and

hence a higher impact than under PO1 due to the legislative changes introduced. Moreover, the

introduction of a single electronic reporting system should have a major effect vis-a-vis the baseline

and PO1.


The changes in the sectoral legislation are aimed at supporting the NECP according to the voluntary

template and guidelines. The transparency of national and EU policies can improve due to these

revisions of sectoral legislation and the integration of some obligations into a single plan. Furthermore,

if under this PO the access to the reports and data is improved, then it will have concrete positive


147

impact on the transparency of national and EU policies. Nevertheless, there might be substantial

differences across the MS in this respect.


The main impact on statistics under this PO compared to the baseline and PO1 is the introduction of a

single electronic reporting system, which should significantly improve the efficiency of reporting on

statistical information and the comparability of data. Some stakeholders agree that a more coherent

presentation of statistics across the obligations could be achieved, especially at the level of every MS

due to the structure imposed by the electronic system. Additional data and indicators might be

collected to meet the needs of the NECP monitoring (subject to the scope and objectives of NECP). Yet

having this integrated plan also poses the risk of a loss of detailed data and of very important

information in the reporting (according to several respondents in the EC stakeholder consultation).

Some stakeholders think that the non-mandatory nature of guidance might not ensure full coherence of

statistics across the MSs. That will also depend on the scope of revisions/amendments to sectoral

legislation - to what extent obligations will be streamlined and integrated into the national plan and to

what extent they remain separate.


The impact on national energy and climate policy is expected to be slightly positive due to the involved

legislative changes supporting the NECP. The aim of the integrated plan is to have a better national

energy and climate policy, and improved monitoring system. This has been also the opinion of some of

the REFIT FC interviewees, according to which the impact of the changes on the national energy and

climate policy will largely be due to NECP related commitments and initiatives, as well as the improved

data supply. However, since the plan is of voluntary nature and revisions will happen only at sectoral

level, the impact is not expected to be high.


This PO includes a legislative change with respect to revising/amending sectoral legislation to support

the adoption of the NECPs through a voluntary template and a single electronic system for reporting.

This also means that a higher impact on the Energy Union objectives is expected than under PO1

compared to the baseline option. In the meantime, it must be borne in mind that there is a persistent

risk that the amendments to sectorial legislation are not adopted by the Council or the Parliament.

In the EC stakeholder consultation, slightly less than half of the respondents believe that this PO would

have a (considerable) improvement on the achievement of the EU energy and climate objectives. A

similar number of respondents believe there will be no change, while only a few respondents believe

there will be deterioration or significant deterioration under PO2 in this respect (see PO1 for

comparison). The interviewees did not have specific views on how this PO would impact the Energy

Union objectives. They mentioned that this would depend on the content of the NECP.


The impact of PO2 on energy security is expected to be positive. The integrated NECPs and online

reporting system can help to streamline and bring together quantitative and qualitative information

relevant for this Energy Union dimension and hence avoid the information asymmetries and frictions

between qualitative national planning documents as observed today. This should improve the ability to

draw EU-wide conclusions on aspects of security of supply. When it comes to qualitative analytical


148

reports, MSs have argued that voluntary soft guidance enables the necessary flexibility and can impose

less administrative burden than mandatory templates, which are hard to design for the specificities of

all national energy systems.


PO2 holds a potential for removing overlaps and streamlining obligations in the area of energy market

(e.g. data collection and reporting activities of NRA, ACER, CEER and EC). While the impact of the

simpler data reporting process on the policy objectives is not immediately seen, the streamlining might

help in improving regional collaboration on integrating gas and electricity markets, as well as in better

cooperation on PCI projects. All in all, the expected impact is positive, but is expected to be somewhat

lower than in PO3b.


Since this policy option requires significant legislative changes to the sectoral legislation in support of

the voluntary NECP, it is also expected that the impact will be higher than under PO1. This impact will

be also exacerbated with the introduction of a single electronic reporting system. The interviewees

suggested several streamlining and integration options for the current energy efficiency legislation. For

example, it has been mentioned that the statistics reported in the annual progress reports under the

EED could be streamlined and integrated with the reporting of similar statistics for Eurostat. These

could then be integrated into the single electronic reporting system established under this scenario.

Some of the REFIT FC interviewees were also positive with regard to keeping planning and reporting

obligations in the sectoral legislation, rather than moving them to a new single act. They did not

provide concrete views on the impact of this PO on achieving this Energy Union objectives, however,

most of the interviewees were open to following a voluntary NECP template set up by the Commission,

if this would not entail too much additional administrative burden.

According to the State of the Energy Union from 201592, an integrated national energy and climate plan

will be indispensable to achieving further the energy efficiency objectives, and as this will be supported

by a legislative action, it is expected that PO2 will have a moderate positive impact on reaching this

objective. This scale of the impact will also depend on the content of the NECP and its template

design.


As decarbonisation is based on both climate and energy policy, the NECP could have a small positive

impact on this Energy Union dimension. The expectation is that the integrated plan could make the

climate objectives more prominent in the energy legislation. Likewise, progress on the renewable

energy target could directly inform the monitoring of progress on the GHG reduction target. The public

consultation shows that nearly half of the respondents believe that this PO will have no impact on

achieving the EU energy and climate objectives, while a slightly smaller amount of respondents think it

would have a (considerable) improvement.


Under this policy option it is expected that there will be a higher positive impact on achieving this

Energy Union objective than under PO1, as sectoral legislation will be reviewed and amended with a

92 COM (2015) 572


149

view to supporting the adoption of the NECP, even if the template remains voluntary. This can imply,

subject to the content of the integrated plan, that the R&I and competitiveness objective will be more

prominent in the energy sectoral legislation, than it is currently. The introduction of a single electronic

reporting system is also expected to support this, under the assumption that some indicators on

measuring R&I expenditures on energy innovative projects would be integrated in the plan.

Interviewees approached within the framework of REFIT FC did not have any views on aspect; however,

positive answers regarding the impact of this PO on this Energy Union objective have been obtained

from the EC stakeholder consultation. Slightly less than half of the respondents to this consultation

believe that this PO would have a (considerable) improvement on increased certainty for investors

stimulating economic growth as well as research, innovation and competitiveness. A similar number of

respondents believe there will be no change, while almost no one believes this would have a negative

or significantly negative impact on this objective. Based on these findings, it is assessed that PO2 will

have a strong positive impact on this Energy Union objective.

Policy option 3: Single legislative act 8.5

Policy Option 3 has been favoured by the largest share of stakeholders consulted in REFIT FC interviews

and via the EC stakeholder consultation (See Figure 8-3 below). They support the view that providing a

holistic overview of Member States progress in different climate and energy strands through an

integrated plan and single legislative act will facilitate the European Commission’s task of overseeing

the progress towards the EU climate and energy objectives. These stakeholders agree that a new

legislative act covering all Energy Union dimensions, may provide a more integrated, with lower risk of

overlaps and, as a consequence, more streamlined approach than option with disperse sectorial

legislation. They support the binding nature of the proposed system, as this will help to avoid the risk

of inconsistency of national plans and the commitment implementation. Binding templates can help

make planning and reporting easier, more transparent and comparable, therefore it is argued that the

current system should include binding templates for all energy-related files. The single act will allow a

more harmonised EU energy policy, which is likely to enable a more efficient functioning of the market

and encourage necessary investments in this sector by favouring in the long-term a more coherent and

predictable legal framework.


150

Figure 8-3: Expected impact in Policy Option 3 – results of the stakeholder consultation

PO3 assumes mandatory reporting templates. However, the views on mandatory vs. voluntary templates

were split across stakeholders. Some questioned whether a voluntary template would be followed by

the Member States. Therefore, a mandatory template was preferred. It was argued that the

introduction of mandatory templates has increased Member States’ compliance rate in the past. For

example, in 2011 only 12, and in 2013 only 11 Member States reported under Article 3 and 5 of

Directive 256/2014. Following the introduction of a mandatory template in 2014, 21 Member States

submitted the reports in 2015.

On the other hand, many believe that the template should provide some flexibility, only certain fields

(in particular, those related to basic, factual data) should be made mandatory, whereas others should

remain voluntary. Fixed templates are seen by some Commission respondents as difficult to amend

when new information needs arise. Therefore, it would be preferable to have a single fixed template

only for the factual data that will be needed in the long-term and a more flexible, ad-hoc part allowing

the Commission to decide, according to policy needs, which information should be reported.

Many stakeholders agree that a single electronic reporting system would be desirable, provided that it

contains separate sections or headings per area and that it is not too cumbersome to implement. There

are examples of different electronic platforms for reporting that can be used as examples. For

example, the electronic system EMOS is currently implemented for reporting under Regulation

2964/95/EC and Council Decision 1999/280. The system is considered very user-friendly and its use is

also being considered for obligations stemming from other legislation.

While there is a dominant favour for the PO3, everyone strongly agrees on the fact that the sub-option

of ALL obligations being streamlined through bringing them all together in one single report is simply

not feasible due to the very large differences in the content and orientation of the planning and

reporting obligations in each energy area. One Commission interviewee considered that PO3 should only

concern those reporting and planning obligations that are relevant in terms of strategic planning and/or


151

relate to the objectives of the Energy Union. It was suggested that there would be no added value in

bringing requirements that are technical in nature and have no implications for strategic planning under

the scope of a single streamlining act and single report.

PO3 has also been criticised by a few interviewed stakeholders, who suggest that the main risk

associated with an integrated Energy Union planning and reporting stream is the loss of very important

information, with related deficiency of transparency, accountability, enforceability and certainty.

Some argue that streamlining under one legislative act should not come at the expense of detailed and

quality data.

Integrated report is seen as a challenge in itself and one can see a trade-off between its size (given the

level of detail currently required) and specificity (how to handle the wide variety of different

obligations and the level of detail to be used). One of the arguments was that if the high level of detail

currently required is retained, simplification will be very difficult. If there was to be a single report for

many pieces of legislation it would result in a rather general report, dissuade detailed information

necessary to monitor the fulfilment of the 2030 targets, which would undermine the transparency and

accountability principles. Furthermore, some mentioned that if there is no clear-cut responsibility as

who does the reporting, as might be the case when a single legislative act is adopted, the reporting

might be done by someone who does not know the subject. It was also argued that, if there is only one

report covering all obligations pertaining to different pieces of legislation, then problems would arise if

MSs are late in submitting the report. The delay would affect all units, whereas at present delays

concerning one report do not affect the other submissions. One respondent pointed out that

information may be available and needed at different times throughout the year, so it would be

problematic to set a deadline for the entire single report. Commission officials also underlined that

fixed reporting templates are generally difficult to amend when new information needs arise.

Sub option 3a: All obligations are streamlined through a single Legislative 8.6Act

While the Policy Option 3a was not seen as the most practical, it can still have a number of positive

elements, like quick (in comparison to PO2) change through adoption of single legislative act, maximum

streamlining due to holistic approach via a single act. It can allow high comparability of MSs reports due

to imposed standardised templates. It can offer a good overview of all developments related to all

reporting and planning obligations in one document. Mandatory template has proven to be practical in

adopting the new system, planning and reporting.

The biggest weakness of this PO is that it is not feasible and practical to integrate very large

differences in the content and orientation of the planning and reporting obligations in each energy

area. The single reporting and planning system for all obligation will be very complex and not very

functional, and, if simplified, will suffer from loss of important details.

Table 8-11 below presents the full overview of the strength and weaknesses of PO3 that have been

identified in the analysis.


152

Table 8-11 Strengths and weaknesses of PO3a: Single legislative Act covering all obligations Strengths Weaknesses

• Quick (in comparison to PO2)

change through adoption of single legislative act; however, due to the fundamental nature of the change, more time is required for implementing the new system in the MS than for individual sectorial legislative acts

• Maximum streamlining due to holistic approach via a single act

• High comparability of MS reports of all POs

• Electronic reporting systems allows for interactive elements, e.g. support functions

• Good overview of all planning and reporting obligations

• Mandatory template are practical in adopting the new system, planning and reporting

• Covering all obligations in Energy field in one Single Legislative Act is not practical due to the thematic diversity, objectives and scopes of obligations.

• Risk of creating a very complex and not functional single reporting system

• Increased complexity of templates covering all obligations

• Integrating some obligation into one single report will reduce the attention to the issue

• Actual requirement on some obligations might be “watered down” in the integration

• Lack of flexibility due to the mandatory nature of the template

• Increased cost of coordination across various stakeholders providing inputs to a single report

• Additional costs associated with introducing an electronic reporting system

• A single planning and reporting system is less fault-tolerant than a sectorial approach

• A single planning and reporting system has a high level of complexity and thus requires very careful preparation, which may make the legislative process time and effort-consuming

As discussed above stakeholders were not convinced of the viability of the PO3a option, therefore many

of them did not see a reason for analysing and discussing it further. Therefore, the assessment of

impact of the PO3a was based largely on the assumptions taken up for this policy option, analysis of the

research team and a limited feedback provided by the stakeholders contacts vis interviews and online

stakeholder consultation. Further details of assumptions used in this PO are presented in Annex I. Table

8-12 below summarises this analysis.

Table 8-12 Impact expected in the PO3a: Single legislative Act covering all obligations

Category of Impact Types of impact

analysed / indicators

Summary of the analysis

DIRECT

IMPACTS

Direct

cost*

Implementation cost

● Cost associated with repealing legislations (by EC) - EUR 5,4 million

● Implementation cost at MS EUR 24.6 mln, (incl. transposition and NECP development)


● All obligations related planning and reporting costs (not estimated) for EC will reduce substantially

● All obligations related planning and reporting costs for 28 MSs around EUR 2 mln/ year

● NECP related planning and reporting cost for 28 MSs, EUR 7.4 mln/year


● New electronic system introduction (one time cost): o New system EUR 6 mln OR o Integration into existing system EUR 75,000

● Additional annual cost of maintenance of the system EUR 150,000 /year

● ICT cost for all obligations will have a very insignificant decrease (EUR 3,600 cheaper in total for all EU28)


● Cost of outsourcing will decrease due to due to integration of all obligations, estimate EUR 4.4 mln / year in EU28


● Centralised and more streamlined reporting system might result is simpler procedures for companies

● Depending on the NECP monitoring needs companies might be required to report new information/data

Direct

benefit


etc.)

● Despite efficiencies achieved in annual planning and reporting costs, the overall annual cost will increase by EUR 15.5 mln due to high cost associated with NECP and electronic system


● Cumulative impact is slightly negative due to expected increased coordination efforts to address all reporting in a


153

Category of Impact Types of impact

analysed / indicators


single report and small costs involved


● Strong negative impact due to the risk of losing necessary granularity of information when all obligations are integrated in single report


● Coherence will improve substantially due to the single reporting system and clear templates for planning and reporting


● Slight positive impact as changes in the obligations might result is simpler procedures for companies

INDIRECT

IMPACTS

Impact

on policy

process


policies

● Strong negative impacts due to complexities of the single report


● While coherence is improved due to a single report and single electronic system, the risk of loss of important details and MS specificities lead to slightly negative cumulative impact

Better national energy and climate

policy

● Slight negative impact as certain policy areas are better addressed through sectoral legislation

Impacts

on

Energy

Union

objective

s


● Small negative impact due to restrained flexibility for MSs qualitative analysis


market

● Small negative impact due to increased complexities and non-viability of the approach



● Positive impact is expected provided the obligations are first streamlined and integrated


● Moderate positive impact expected due to holistic climate and energy approach, but with a risk of the loss of some data/oversight


● High positive impact expected as current obligations do not sufficiently integrate this objective

● Mandatory template and a single act expected to push forward the integration of this objective

Direct cost 8.6.1

Implementation cost

In PO3a the cost of implementation is expected to be higher than in PO1 and lower than in PO2 due to

centralised coordinated actions via implementation of a single legislative act. The cost of

implementation for the EC will include cost of development and introduction of the single act, and

following it cost of amendment of all 31 legislations. These will further initiate the activities and

impose additional costs at the EU MS on implementing single act via ministerial order, as well as

transposition and implementation of amended directives and regulations. Table below presents the

details of the implementation costs incurred in PO3a. Details of assumptions used in the cost

calculation for each PO are presented in Annex I.


154

Table 8-13 Details on assumptions and estimations of implementation cost in PO3a

Cost element

Cost Components of the cost and assumptions

Implementation cost for the EC

EUR 5,369,000

Development of the single legislative act (regulation): • Preparation and drafting: 36 person months’ equivalent of EC

officer; total cost EUR 216,000 • Working Group (6 EC officers, 28 MS representatives, 3

months’ full time equivalent); Total cost EUR 339,000 • Public consultation on new Act: EUR 30,000-EUR 80,000 • Translation into 23 MS languages and quality assurance total

cost EUR 299.000

Revision/amendment of existing legislations as a result of Single Act by EC (31 legislations):

• Revision and renewal of the obligations – 0.5-1 person month of EC officer per legislations, total cost being EUR 93,000.

• Discussion of legislations in six working group including 4 EC officers and 28 MS representatives working for 2-3 months’ full time equivalent. Total cost EUR 1.5 mln93

• Translation of 31 legislations into 23 MS languages and quality assurance (EUR 4,000 per legislation); total cost EUR 2.9 mln

Implementation cost for MSs

EUR 24,556,000

(total for 28 MSs)

Implementation of the single act via ministerial order for 28 MSs: • Development of the ministerial order (3-5 person months):

EUR 308,000 for 28 MSs • Discussion in a working group: EUR 756,000 for 28 MSs

Transposition of all 14 EU Directives to national legislation:

• 1-2 person months of MS public officer - EUR 1.6 mln for 28 MSs

• Discussion in an expert group (10-20 people, 20 days) and adoption - EUR 1.07 mln for 28 MSs

Development and adoption of NECP: • Preparation of the plan (12 months’ equivalent effort of MS

public officer and experts) EUR 9.6 mln for 28 MSs • Public consultation –EUR 30,000-80,000, or around EUR 1.5

mln for EU 28 MSs

A substantial implementation cost is expected to be on the side of the EC for revising/ repealing the

sectoral legislation and for coordinating and streamlining across obligations in many pieces of

legislation by implementing a single act for reporting and planning obligations. Development of a single

act will require around 36 person months’ effort of the EC officers, around 3 months’ effort of the

working group including 28 MSs and the EC officer.

Online or physical event based public consultation will be organised to discuss the single legislative act.

The cost can range between EUR 30,000 to EUR 80,000 depending on the approach applied (online vs,

physical meetings).

The translation and followed up quality assurance effort suggested to be around EUR 13,000 per one

language. Translation into all EU languages will result in up to EUR 300,000 cost for EC.

Implementation of the single legislative act will result in amendment of 31 legislations, involvement of

the working groups, translation. Like in the case with the revision of sectorial legislations, in PO3a it is

expected that the working group discussions of these legislations will be grouped into six thematic

93 EC officer monthly fee is estimated at EUR 6000; average monthly fee of a MS public servant is EUR 2750, based on Eurostat data


155

groups, rather than launching an individual working group discussion on each legislation. The

composition of the working group can be the same as in PO2, however it is expected that the time

needed for discussion will be shorter (2-3 months).

The new single legislative act is expected to be a regulation, therefore implementation costs by MS will

apply in form of the ministerial order. There will also be an initial cost for adoption of a new guidance

and system incurred by Member States. Similar as in policy option 2, this policy option includes

legislative changes to the sectoral legislation, hence all Member States will be affected.

Additional transposition cost of the directives amended as an effect of the single act and

implementation cost of amended regulations is also taken into consideration for MSs (i.e. transposition

and discussion with experts).

Additional cost of adoption of NECP by MSs is expected to be the highest in PO3a, due to higher

complexity and bigger size of the NECP dictated by the full coverage of all obligations. It was assumed

that the cost development of NECPs across 28 MSs will be around EUR 11.2 mln.


The annual cost of reporting and planning on obligations will decrease due to integration of all

obligations into a single planning and reporting system under NECP. The following assumptions have

been deployed in estimations of the planning and reporting cost in PO3a scenario (also see Annex I):

● Based on the definitions of the PO3a all obligations will be integrated into NECP, except for the

4 obligations that are recommended to be repealed (abolished);

● Annual planning/reporting (as well as outsourcing cost) of obligations that are integrated in the

single system under NECP will decrease by 50%;

● All costs associated with repealed obligations will be zero;

● All countries will bear additional annual cost of NECP related planning and reporting, which is

much higher than in other PO due to larger scope and higher complexity of NECP covering all

obligations.

Based on these assumptions it was estimated that under Single Act covering all obligations the total

planning and reporting costs for 28 MSs will be around EUR 1.98 mln/year, which is over EUR 2 mln

lower in comparison to baseline scenario and over EUR 1.6 mln lower than in PO2 (see also Table 9-1).

At the same time preparation of a single national report will require a much higher effort and therefore

cost more than in PO2. Approximate estimates of the effort and cost of the NECP related activities in

each country can be based on the average of 12 person months’ work of 6-9 national agents preparing

the national report on NECP. This will translate into EU28 total cost of close to EUR 14.8 mln 94

(average) per reporting round.


In estimation of the MS born annual ICT/ equipment cost it was assumed that this cost for integrated

into NECP obligations will not change because MS will continue using their systems for collecting

94 Assumption is based on average salary of EUR 2.750 based on the national statistics from Eurostat on


156

information, independent of whether this obligation now feeding the central report or not. ICT cost for

repealed/abolished obligations is zero. Based on these assumptions, the estimated cost borne by EU28

MSs will be EUR 8 mln/year, which is EUR 3,500 cheaper than in the baseline scenario due to abolished

obligations.

Like in PO3b, there will be an introduction of a new electronic reporting system. A wider scope of the

reporting obligations integrated in NECP will lead to a somewhat higher costs than in PO2. EC will bare

an additional cost for maintenance of the centralised electronic system, which will about around EUR

150,000/year that is assumed to be 50% higher than in PO2. Higher cost is due to a larger scope of data

and information to be reported and consequently higher amount of effort needed to manage these

data.

Due to much larger scope of reported data and information in PO3a, the electronic system should also

be more sophisticated and have larger capacity. It is assumed that such system will be more expensive

than the one suggested in PO2 and PO3b and can be estimated at EUR 6mln for the design of a new

system, while the integration into the existing European database might cost up to EUR 75,000.95


It was assumed that the annual outsourcing costs of obligations that are integrated in the NECP will

decrease by 50%, while the cost of the repealed obligations will be zero. Based on these assumptions it

was estimated that the total cost of outsourcing all obligations will be EUR 4.41 /year, which is around

EUR 4.6 mln lower than, or over half of the cost of the baseline scenario. It is the lowest cost across all

POs.

In the current assessment the subcontracting activities were not included, as for the simplicity and

consistency of calculation we assume that only the public official will be involved in preparing NECP

planning and reporting. In case the MS will use subcontracting in NECP planning and reporting, there

will be a shift of the cost assumed for the MS public officers to the subcontracting of external

consultants. This might also slightly increase the overall administrative cost on planning and reporting

activities, but the magnitude will vary across the countries due to varied cost of external consultant

services.


The cost to industrial players might reduce thanks to the simpler or more efficient process in data

collection that might stem from the shift to the single reporting system. At the same time one could

foresee a possible need for new data and information, but this would depend on the ambitions, goals

and needs of the new NECP. In overall the large and more generic scope of NECP is not likely to require

very detailed data. In this respect PO3a will be less burdensome for companies than PO3b.



The PO3a scenario is expected to reduce the annual reporting and planning costs in the long run due to

the streamlining and bringing all obligations under the single reporting system and the introduction of

an electronic reporting system. However, under the given assumptions, the overall annual cost will be

95 based on the interviews with EC and EEA representatives who deal with the comparable European electronic reporting systems


157

slightly higher (close to EUR 800,000 in total for 28 MSs) than the cost in the baseline due to the more

effort demanding NECP reporting and coordination. As it has been discussed above the NECP related

cost in PO3a is much higher than in other POs due to more complex and larger content of NECP due to

integration of all obligations. It will surpass the expected 52% savings achieved through integration of

the obligations (e.g. halving cost of planning, reporting and outsourcing).


If implemented, PO3a is expected to improve the efficiency of the reporting process on one hand, but

also create complexities on the other hand. The integration of all obligations in one reporting and

planning system will provide a more integrated vision on the reporting requirements across the five

dimensions of the Energy Union, hence reducing the risk of overlaps, duplications and redundancies

more than other POs. However, as it has been highlighted previously, the complexity stemming from

the inclusion of all obligations in one report creates a risk that the collection of information for the

report will be a time consuming and a rather complex process. The mandatory template, if well

designed, might help to mitigate these difficulties, however it risks of being overly complex and less

instrumental for the reporters. There are various institutions at the level of each MS compiling the

necessary information. According to REFIT FC interviewees, one single report would substantially

increase the necessary coordination efforts. The transition period to the new system can be expected

to bear higher inefficiencies due to learning curve and adaptation that MSs will have to go through.

Taking into account the abovementioned aspects and the fact that PO3a includes cost (albeit much

smaller than in PO1 and PO2), the cumulative impact of PO3a is assessed as negative.


PO3a scenario would risk that the details and granularity of the information and data collected would

deteriorate. Single integrated plans and reports would not be the most appropriate carriers of some

detailed, technical, but still crucial information. The main concern of stakeholders is that the single

report would not be able to channel and present the whole range of information and data currently

presented in the reports and plans under the separate obligations. Thus PO3a can have a strong

negative impact on information quality.


There are benefits from PO3a in terms of coherence as all changes are devoted to removing overlaps

and simplification of the reporting requirements. PO3a can lead to very significant improvements in

coherence of national plans and reporting and planning formats. The effect on simplification of

reporting procedures is also highly dependent on the specific design of reporting template that will be

eventually adopted, as well as functionalities that are enabled for the template and electronic

reporting system (e.g. modularity, automatic pre-filling of statistical data, etc.). However as

mentioned above, the combination of the simplification of the reporting and keeping it only under a

single report will risk in loosing important details and information needed for policy making.


As discussed above (in ‘Specific cost for companies’) one can expect that the cost to industrial players

will reduce due to the simplification of the reporting requirements. At the same time, the NECP and

the new system may involve a need for the collection of data with different granularity, which stems

from the harmonisation of data input across MSs. This would imply adaptation cost also from

companies. Requesting new indicators and information under the reporting might also make companies


158

to start thinking about performance on these indicators and improve the performance in a long run. Yet

this is dependent on the ambitions, goals and needs formulated under the new NECP. The overall

impact of PO3a on companies is assessed as slightly positive.


Due to the large amount of obligations in the EU energy acquis with a very different nature and scope,

it is expected that it will not be practically possible to integrate all obligations into a single document,

and this is also seen as not desirable due to the subsequent complexity of the documents. The

interviewees (from both MSs and the Commission) agreed with this statement.


Repealing all obligations in sectoral legislation and streamlining and merging them into a single

document is not expected to increase transparency of national and EU policies vis-a-vis the baseline, as

streamlining will be very complex, if not impossible to do. Even though a single document could provide

a comprehensive overview of all obligations compared to having them separately in sectoral legislation,

the single document faces the risk of being overly complex and as such not transparent at all. This has

been pointed out by some of the REFIT FC interviewees. Moreover, several respondents to the EC

stakeholder consultation stressed that integrating obligations into a single act and report poses the risk

of losing detailed and important information, which will undermine transparency. This has been

similarly pointed out in PO2, but the effect in PO3a on this can be expected to be more negative as the

template is mandatory and all obligations are streamlined and merged. Thus the transparency under

this policy option is expected to have a moderate negative impact vis-a-vis the other POs and the

baseline.


The mandatory template and a single electronic reporting system is expected to improve the

comparability and efficiency of statistics collected vis-a-vis the baseline and PO2, as the template will

become mandatory. This will depend though on the extent to which the integrated plan will streamline

the existing obligations. Additional data or indicators might be introduced through NECP improving the

overall statistics. Yet in PO3a there is a risk that the integration of all obligations into a single report

will overlook detailed data and information. As REFIT FC interviews pointed out, MSs might find it very

hard to provide comparable statistics due to the country specific circumstances and data collection

methodologies applied. Due to these risks, the cumulative impact of PO3a on the quality of statistics is

assessed as slightly negative.


Even though the integrated national plan is expected to improve national energy and climate policies

and it is supported by a single legislative act, the fact that all obligations should be integrated (with

the exception of those that are going to be abolished) raises concerns as to whether this will lead to

better national energy and climate policy, as some topics and issues are suggested to remain separated

(as they do not fit in a single document). Hence, this PO does not seem feasible nor very desirable from

the perspective of improving national energy and climate policies.

Impact on Energy Union objectives 8.6.4

Under this PO, a single legislative act will be developed which will integrate all EU energy acquis

planning and reporting obligations. The REFIT FC interviewees were of the opinion that such an option


159

is not feasible, hence did not provide further information on its potential impacts. The EC stakeholder

consultation also did not distinguish between PO3a and PO3b. However, the majority of the

respondents were of the opinion that this PO will (considerably) improve the achievement of the EU

energy and climate objectives. Only a few indicated no change or deterioration.

It is clear that the respondents are of the opinion that a single legislative act with a mandatory

template will have a higher impact than PO1 and PO2. However, given the analysis of the existing

planning and reporting obligations done in Chapter 3, it is also clear that integrating all of them into a

single act and report is not desirable due to their very distinct scope and needs. The main risk is that

detailed and important information will be lost if all obligations are integrated, which will have a

negative impact on achieving the Energy Union objectives. In addition, some obligations falling, for

example, under nuclear energy legislation, do not fit within this integrated plan.


The cumulative impact of PO3a on security of supply may be negative. The inclusion of all reporting

requirements under the integrated NECP is not a very convenient option for the security of supply

dimension, unless the template design foresees specific modularity. Part of the reporting obligations

also serves to monitor the evolution of situation in the energy supply, hence a range of indicators (e.g.

level of emergency stocks and specific stocks) need to be reported e.g. on a monthly basis. While a

single legislative act may help to streamline better quantitative reporting obligations, REFIT FC

interviews with MSs highlighted that binding templates for qualitative planning documents are not only

difficult for EC to design, but they may even hamper the quality of the information provided. The

interviewed MSs were convinced that ability to iterate and amend planning documents upon the

guidelines and comments from EC lead to the best quality output.


Integrating all obligation in one legislative act and into single reporting system in PO3a is not likely to

generate practical inputs for policy making in the area of energy markets. Such integration can create

unnecessary layers of complexities in already rather complex set of obligations in the regulations in this

area. Consulted stakeholders also agree that the PO3a is not feasible in its implementation due to

diverse content of the obligations. The overall impact of PO3a is assessed as negative.


The REFIT FC interviewees were of the opinion that it is challenging to integrate all energy efficiency

legislation and its current obligations into one single document as this would become a very complex

and not at all a transparent report/plan. Rather they suggested that only parts of the energy efficiency

obligations, such as the reported annual energy statistics could be integrated in such a plan in addition

to some high level objectives. However, integration of energy efficiency obligations into NECP is not

expected to have a form of collating all existing plans and reports as they are into one single document

but these obligations would be streamlined and might consist of more than one document. The

respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation did not distinguish between PO3a and PO3b, hence it is

difficult to say what their opinion on this was. In general, they viewed a mandatory template and a

single act as very positive in reaching the 2030 targets, including the energy efficiency target. Based on

the analysis of the current obligations and its specificities, it is recommended that all obligations in this

area are first streamlined and integrated (in multiple documents if necessary) in order to avoid


160

generating a very complex document or loss of important information. As such, it is expected that PO3a

would have a very positive impact on reaching this Energy Union objective.


More than half of the respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation believe this policy option would

(considerably) improve the achievement of the EU energy and climate objectives. At the same time,

over 10% believe it would deteriorate the achievement of the objectives. There is a high risk that

integrating all climate and energy obligations into one single plan would produce a document that is too

large to keep an oversight on. There is also a risk of the loss of some detailed and technical, but crucial

information.

However, if these risks can be mitigated, PO3a could provide better visibility regarding the entire

energy and climate framework. Especially in the decarbonisation of the economy, where climate and

energy objectives come together, this could bring a positive impact to reaching the objectives. One

legislative act for all obligations could introduce a broader climate and energy governance structure,

which could aid the achievement of the climate and energy goals by facilitating the exploitation of

synergies between the dimensions of the Energy Union (e.g. the role of energy efficiency and

renewables in both the ETS and non-ETS sectors). Based on the analysis of current obligations and in

light of the above consideration, it is expected that PO3a has a moderate positive impact on reaching

the objectives of decarbonisation of economy. The risk of losing important data and oversight has an

attenuating effect on the positive impact of a holistic climate and energy governance approach.


Under this PO, there is a significant risk that detailed information and data will be lost due to

integration of all planning and reporting obligations. However, since the existing obligations are only

indirectly linked to this Energy Union objective, this risk is expected to be limited. Moreover, the

majority of respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation were of the opinion that PO3 (no distinction

made between 3a and 3b) will (considerably) improve increased certainty for investors stimulating

economic growth as well as research, innovation and competitiveness. Only a few indicated no change

or deterioration. This is mainly due to the introduction of a mandatory template and a single legislative

act, which will ‘force’ all the Member States to implement it. As such, it is expected that PO3a will

have a high positive impact on this Energy Union objective.

Sub-option 3b: Most of obligations are streamlined through a single 8.7Legislative Act

There seem to be a wider agreement that it is more practical if streamlining was done via a single

legislative act, but covering a selected scope of regulations and obligations. It was suggested that such

a streamlining could be done based on the following considerations:

• Reporting and planning obligations are relevant in terms of strategic planning and/or relate to the

objectives of the Energy Union.

• Single reporting template that is detailed enough to satisfy each unit’s information needs.

• Single electronic system for reporting focused on quantitative data collection and selected

qualitative reports.

• Ensuring that the contributions from different parties/sectors in the single report is provided in

time, therefore the unified timeline for the contributions is adopted.

• Defined content that could be restricted to wider public dissemination.


161

• The Commission clearly defines the level of detail it requires in a single report in order to avoid

receiving lengthy documents that are impossible to handle.

Table 8-14 Strengths and weaknesses of PO3b: Single legislative Act covering selected obligations Strengths Weaknesses

• Mandatory template will help in adopting the changes brought by the single legislative act

• The template will also support qualitative assessments in reporting

• The template will help to reduce the costs of adoption of changes

• Quick (in comparison to PO2) change through adoption of single legislative act; however, due to the fundamental nature of the change, more time is required for implementing the new system in the MS than for individual sectorial legislative acts

• Maximum streamlining due to holistic approach via a single act

• In the long run reduced administrative burden and cost due to transition to a single system

• Availability of the electronic systems that can be easily adopted for the reporting needs in especially quantitative data (EMOS, Eurostat’s system)

• Operational advantages for reporting entity • Highest comparability of MS reports of all POs • Electronic reporting systems allows for interactive

elements, e.g. support functions • Good overview of all planning and reporting

obligations

• Lack of flexibility due to the mandatory nature of the template

• Fixed templates are less flexible to amend when new information is needed

• Additional cost of coordination across various stakeholders providing inputs to a single report; this may affect some MSs more than others

• Additional costs associated with introducing an electronic reporting system

• Additional cost in implementing and adopting the new system

• A single planning and reporting system is less fault-tolerant than a sectorial approach

• A single planning and reporting system has a high level of complexity and thus requires very careful preparation, which may make the legislative process time and effort-consuming

The impacts from the implementation of PO3b are summarised in the Table 8-15 below. Details of

assumptions used in cost calculation for this PO are presented in Annex I. Overall the expected impacts

put PO3b in a more attractive positioning amongst other POs, due to the comparatively lower

implementation costs and administrative costs, and achievement of higher policy impacts.

Table 8-15 Impact expected in the PO3b: Single legislative Act covering selected obligations

Category of Impact

Types of impact analysed / indicators


DIRECT IMPACTS

Direct cost

Implementation cost

• Cost associated with repealing, amending a number of legislation and developing a single act (by EC), which is in total EUR 3.6 mln

• Implementation cost by 28 MSs, including transposition, implementation, NECP adoption - EUR 18.3 mln


• All obligations related planning and reporting costs (not estimated) for EC will reduce

• All obligations related planning and reporting costs for 28 MSs around EUR 3 mln/ year

• NECP related planning and reporting cost for 28 MSs is EUR 3.7 mln /year


• New electronic system introduction (one time cost): o New system EUR 5 mln OR o Integration into existing system EUR 50,000

• Additional annual cost of maintenance of the system EUR 100,000 /year

• ICT cost for all obligations will have a very insignificant decrease


• Cost of outsourcing will decrease due to due to repeal and integration of some obligations, estimate EUR 5.3 mln / year in EU28


• Centralised and more streamlined reporting system might result is simpler procedures for companies

• Depending on the NECP monitoring needs companies might be required to report new information/data


162

Direct benefit


etc.)

• Despite efficiencies achieved in annual planning and reporting costs, the overall annual cost will increase by EUR 6.3 mln due to high cost associated with NECP and electronic system. However this is 2.3-3 times lower than in PO2 and PO3b


• Strong positive improvement due to single report, single electronic reporting system and associated cost savings


• Strong positive improvement due to better coherence of information and avoidance of duplications


• Strong positive improvement due to the single electronic system and clear templates for planning and reporting


• Changes in the obligations might result is slightly simpler procedures for companies

• Small chance that companies will benefit in other terms of new sustainable practices

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Impact on policy

process


policies

• Small improvement is expected due to the single electronic system,

• Yet risk remains of losing some data due to streamlining


• Strong positive impact due to more coherent statistics due to templates and the single electronic system

• Might add additional data from NECP Better national

energy and climate policy

• Strong positive impact due to the introduction of NECP and better data supply processes

Impacts on

Energy Union

objectives


• In case NECP template design enables modularity, small positive impact due to increased streamlining and overview of related information


market

• Strong positive impact, especially in relation to interregional cooperation and joint infrastructure setting activities



• Very strong positive impact due to mandatory nature of NECP, and improved consistency, comparability and integration of data


• Very strong positive impact due to a holistic climate and energy approach that can facilitate synergies and mutually reinforcing developments


• Very strong positive impact as current obligations do not sufficiently integrate this objective

• Mandatory template and the single act expected to push forward the integration of this objective

Direct cost 8.7.1

Implementation cost

There are similar implementation activities involved in this option as in PO3a, which the only difference

in the smaller scope of obligations integrated under the single legislative act, less extensive content of

NECP, as well as the less effort required for actions related to these documents.

The cost of implementation for the EC will include cost of development and introduction of the single

act, and following it cost of amendment of selected legislations. Based on the study recommendations

19 out of total 31 pieces of legislations to be amended (due to repeal or integration of the obligations

into NECP). This includes 11 directives, 6 regulations, 2 decisions. In addition, there will be an update

of two legislations that expire in 2020 (Directive 2009/71 and Regulations 1368/69/2013). It is assumed

that the remaining ten pieces of legislation will not be revised in this PO, bearing no implementation

cost, however the annual reporting and planning cost associated with them is considered in the

following subsection.


163

The initiation of the single act will further initiate the activities in MS and impose additional costs at on

implementing single act via ministerial order, as well as transposition and implementation of amended

directives and regulations. Table below presents the details of the implementation costs incurred in

PO3b. Further details of assumptions used in this PO are also presented in Annex I.

Table 8-16 Details on assumptions and estimations of implementation cost in PO3b


Implementation cost for the EC

EUR 3,613,000

Development of the single legislative act (regulation) • Preparation and drafting: 24 person months’ equivalent for EC officers; total

cost EUR 144,000 • Working Group (6 EC officers, 28 MS representatives, 2 months’ full time

equivalent); Total cost EUR 226,000 • Public consultation on new Act: EUR 20,000-EUR 60,000 • Translation into 23 MS languages and quality assurance total cost EUR

299,000 Revision/amendment/renewal of existing legislations as a result of Single Act by EC (11 directives, 6 regulations, 2 decisions), and one directive and one regulation that stay separate but expire in 2020: • Revision and renewal of the obligations - 0,5-1 person month of EC officer

per legislations, total cost being EUR 63,000. • Discussion of legislations in six working group including 4 EC officers and 28

MS representative working for 1-2 months’ full time equivalent. Total cost EUR 0.9 mln96

• Translation of 21 legislations into 23 MS languages and quality assurance (EUR 4,000 per legislation); total cost EUR 1.9 mln

Implementation cost for MS

EUR 18,340,000 (total for 28 MSs)

Implementation of the single act via ministerial order for 28 MS: • Development of the ministerial order (3-5 person months): EUR 308,000 for

28 MSs • Discussion in a working group: EUR 756,000 for 28 MSs Transposition of 12 EU Directives to national legislation: • 1-2 person month of MS public officer - EUR 1.4 mln for 28 MSs • Discussion in an expert group (10-20 people, 10 days) and adoption - EUR

574,000 for 28 MSs Development and adoption of NECP • Preparation of the plan (8 months’ equivalent effort of MS public officer and

experts) EUR 7.2 mln for 28 MSs • Public consultation –EUR 20,000-50,000, or around EUR 1 mln for EU 28 MSs

Similar to PO3a EC will bear the of developing of a single legislative act which however is expected to

be lower due to less disperse scope and narrower coverage of obligations. It is assumed that the

development of a single act will require around 24 person months’ effort of the EC officers, around 2

months’ effort of the working group including 28 MSs and the EC officer.

Online or physical event based public consultation organised to discuss the single legislative act will

also have slightly lower cost (between EUR 20,000 to EUR 60,000 depending on the approach applied).

The translation and followed up quality assurance effort will not be different from the one in PO3a (up

to EUR 300,000 cost for EC).

Implementation of the single legislative act will result in amendment of selected legislations, including

11 directives, 6 regulations, 2 decisions. There will also be a cost for updating one directive and one

regulation that stay separate but expire in 2020. Further costs will be associated with involvement of

the working groups, translation of these legislations. Like in the case with the revision of sectorial

96 EC officer monthly fee is estimated at EUR 6,000; average monthly fee of a MS public servant is EUR 2,750, based on Eurostat data


164

legislations and in PO3a, in PO3b it is expected that the working group discussions of these legislations

will be grouped into six thematic groups, rather than launching an individual working group discussion

on each legislation. The composition of the working group can be the same as in PO3a, however it is

expected that the time needed for discussion will be shorter (1-2 months).

The new single legislative act is expected to be a regulation, therefore implementation costs by MSs

will apply in form of the ministerial order. In will include the cost for development of the ministerial

order, discussion with expert group before it is implemented in the practice.

12 Directives that will have been amended or revised will be transposed in the MS legislations. This will

impose a cost for transposition and discussion with the national experts. This cost is expected to be

slightly lower than in PO3a due to smaller scope and less efforts requirements.

In addition, there will be a one-time cost of adoption of NECP by MS, that will come in addition to the

sectoral legislation and it obligations. The assumption is that this cost is somewhat higher than in PO1

due to higher complexity of NECP, but lower than in PO3a due to smaller coverage of obligations. The

total NECP adoption related cost across EU28 is estimated to be EUR 8.1 mln.


The cost of obligations for the EC in this study have not been estimated due to lack of baseline data on

specific planning and report cost on each obligation. However, one can expect that the obligations

related planning and reporting costs for EC will decrease due to repeal and integration of obligations

into single report under NECP.

The administrative cost of reporting and planning on obligations for MS will decrease due to repeal and

integration of a number of obligations into a single planning and reporting system under NECP. The

scope of reporting and planning obligations will the same as in PO2. The following assumptions have

been deployed in estimations of the planning and reporting cost in PO3b scenario:

• Based on the recommendation of this study (see section 5.6) 23 pieces of MS obligation to be

integrated into NECP, 4 obligations to be repealed, 19 obligations will stay unchanged and separate

from NECP;

• Annual planning/reporting (as well as outsourcing cost) of obligations that are integrated in the

single system under NECP will decrease by 50%;

• All costs associated with repealed obligations will be zero;

• All costs associated with obligation that stay separate from NECP will not change;

• All countries will bear additional annual cost of NECP related planning and reporting.

Based on these assumptions it was estimated that the annual planning and reporting costs for 28 MSs

will be around EUR 3 mln/year, which is around EUR 1.2 mln lower in comparison to the baseline

scenario (see also Table 9-1).


165

The estimates of the effort and cost of the coordination activity in each country can be based on the

average of six months’ full time work of 6-10 national agents preparing the national report on NECP.

This will translate into EU28 total cost of EUR 3.7 mln97 (average) per reporting round.


ICT/equipment cost will not change much from the current situations, with just exclusion of the cost

for four obligations that would be abolished. It was assumed that this cost for integrated into NECP

obligations will not change because MS will continue using their systems for collecting information,

independent of whether this obligation now feeding the central report or not. Based on these

assumptions, the estimated cost to borne by EU28 MSs will be EUR 8 mln/year, which is the same as in

PO3a and slightly cheaper than in the baseline scenario.

In PO3b EC will have an additional cost for maintenance of the centralised electronic system, which will

about around EUR 100,000/year that is the same as in PO2 due to the same scope of data and

information to be reported. The cost of the introduction of the electronic system is well comparable to

the PO2 (around EUR 5 mln for the design of a new system and around EUR 50,000 for integration into

an existing European reporting systems)98.


It was assumed that the annual outsourcing costs of obligations that are integrated in the NECP will

decrease by 50%, the cost of ones repealed will be zero, the cost of the ones maintained will not

change. Based on these assumptions it was estimated that the total cost of outsourcing all obligations

will be EUR 5.3 mln /year, which is around EUR 3.7 mln lower than in the baseline scenario and similar

to the cost in PO2.

In the current assessment the subcontracting activities were not included, as for the simplicity and

consistency of calculation we assume that only the public official will be involved in preparing NECP

planning and reporting. In case the MS will use subcontracting in NECP planning and reporting, there

will be a shift of the cost assumed for the MS public officers to the subcontracting of external

consultants. This might also slightly increase the overall administrative cost on planning and reporting

activities, but the magnitude will vary across the countries due to varied cost of external consultant

services.


The cost to industrial players might reduce thanks to the simpler or more efficient process in data

collection that might stem from the shift to the single reporting system. At the same time some foresee

a possible need for new data and information, but this would depend on the ambitions, goals and needs

of the new NECP.



Given the assumptions, the calculation shows that PO3b is the only PO that achieves annual cost

reduction and savings in the ongoing reporting and planning activities. Benchmarking the annual

administrative cost in PO3b against the baseline scenario shows that PO3b is EUR 1.1 mln less costly. It

97 Based on the EU average salary estimates of EUR 2.750, based on the national statistics sourced fron Eurostat 98 based on interviews with representatives of EC and EEA working with comparable reporting system


166

is also EUR 9.4 mln and EUR 1.9 mln less costly than the PO2 and PO3a respectively. While the cost for

annual planning and reporting appear to be somewhat higher than in PO3a, lower cost is associated

with the NECP coordination, planning and reporting due to its more focused scope and more

manageable size. The integration strategy applied in the PO is supposed to achieves the best

efficiencies in the ongoing planning and reporting.


167


PO3b is expected to significantly improve the efficiency of the reporting process. This is due to the

reduction of the cost for annual reporting and planning activities achieved through interventions. At the

same time a single legislative act will provide a more integrated vision on the reporting requirements

across the five dimensions of the Energy Union, hence reducing the risk of overlaps, duplications and

redundancies more than in other policy options. The mandatory template will help to adopt the

changes brought by the single legislative act relatively quickly. The transition period to the new system

can be expected to bear higher inefficiencies due to learning curve and adaptation that MSs will have to

go through. The preponderance of respondents (42%) to the EC stakeholder consultation consider that

PO3 (no distinction is made between PO3a and PO3b) will lead to improvements of significant

improvements for effective and efficient implementation of EU legislation, while 22% of respondents

hold the opposite view. PO3b is also the only option that will bring annual cost savings in comparison to

the baseline. Taking all aspects into account, the overall impact of PO3b on the efficiency of reporting

system is strongly positive.


Generally, PO3b scenario would lead to an important improvement in the quality of information

collected due to improved and binding content requirements and streamlined coherence and

granularity of information across the MSs. While a number of stakeholders share the concern that

binding templates under a single legislative act would work at the detriment of collecting quality

information, since there are important divergences in national circumstances, the greatest share of

REFIT FC respondents does agree that NCEPs would provide data for a clearer overview of MSs and

overall EU progress towards the achievement of Energy Union targets. Furthermore, in the reporting

system that allows separate reporting on specific obligations in addition to the centralised reporting on

selected obligation will assure better presentation and granularity of information and details. From the

EC stakeholder consultation 46% of respondents consider PO3 (no distinction is made between PO3a and

PO3b) will bring improvements or significant improvements in the possibility to monitor performance

and trends and put in place corrective measures, while 18% are of opposite opinion.


There are very clear benefits from PO3b in terms of coherence as all changes are devoted to

streamlining, improving the comparability and congruence of reporting requirements. More than half of

respondents (51%) to the EC stakeholder consultation are certain that PO3 (no distinction is made

between PO3a and PO3b) will lead to improvements or significant improvements in coherence of

national plans and reporting formats and only 14% consider the opposite. The effect on simplification of

reporting procedures is highly dependent on the specific design of reporting template that will be

eventually adopted, as well as functionalities that are enabled for the template and electronic

reporting system (e.g. modularity, automatic pre-filling of statistical data, etc.). Furthermore, under

PO3b there can be distributional impact, where ‘old MSs’ are less affected than ‘new MSs’, as ‘old MSs’

have national obligations requiring reporting and planning, similar to the EU obligations, hence

streamlining at EU level will have less of an impact as the MSs will still have to do the national

reporting. Unlike in the new MSs where EU obligations are taken as a guideline to build national

reporting.


168


Similar to PO2, it can be expected that the longer-term cost to industrial players might slightly reduce

due to the simpler and more efficient process in data collection from companies under PO3b. More

concrete appraisal of this benefit requires further investigation. At the same time, the new system may

involve a need for the collection of data with different granularity, which stems from the harmonisation

of data input across MSs. This would imply adaptation cost also from companies, but the new data

requirements might stimulate companies to improve performance on the new indicators and bring them

closer to more sustainable mode of operation. Yet this is dependent on the ambitions, goals and needs

formulated under the new NECP.



It is not fully clear to what extent the transparency of national and EU policies will be affected under

this PO. Some REFIT FC interviewees suggest that the activities in PO3b might lead to higher

transparency of national and EU policies due to easier access to the reports, data and information

collected from each MS. On the other hand, respondents in the EC stakeholder consultation indicated

there is a risk of losing important information and data due to the integration and repealing of certain

obligations, however this impact is much lower than in PO3a. As such this impact is expected to be

positive, but low, similarly to that in PO2.


Similar as in PO3a, a higher quality and comparability of the statistics reported is expected due to the

mandatory template, as well as better coherence in statistics across the EU Member States. This has

been confirmed also by some REFIT FC interviewees. On the other hand, as pointed out in PO2 and

PO3a, several stakeholders fear the loss of detailed data and information due to integration into a

single plan. However, this problem is less pronounced in this scenario than under PO3a, as the number

of reporting and planning obligations will stay separate from NECP, thus will still generate detailed data

and information. This problem could also be compensated by the possibility for introduction of new

indicators and additional data in energy and climate topics due to a more coherent approach in

monitoring of Energy Union objectives, which would provide further statistics (according to some

interviewees). This will however, depend on the scope of the integrated plan. The expected impact of

PO3b on better statistics is considered to be moderately positive.


This policy option seems to be the best from all POs with regard to pushing forward a better, more

integrated national energy and climate policy due to a new legislative act and a mandatory template,

and the fact that only the relevant obligations will be integrated into this plan, not all as in PO3a. This

has been confirmed by several REFIT FC interviewees who foresee the possibility of improving national

energy and climate policy due to the stronger transposition of obligations related to the NECP and

reporting. In addition, several respondents to the EC stakeholder consultation are of the opinion that

only a mandatory template supported by a single legislative act would improve the quality, consistency

and effectiveness of national plans and reports. The cumulative impact of PO3b on better national

energy and climate policies is assessed as moderately positive.


169


Similar as for PO3a, it is expected that a single act in addition to a mandatory template will address the

Energy Union objectives in a more targeted and coordinated way via the mandatory NECP, monitoring

imposed by the new legislative act, as well as higher commitment from national and local stakeholders

to the Energy Union objectives and implementation of NECP. Provided the mandatory nature of the

changes, the impact could be expected in all MSs. It is also expected that some level of ambition in

NECP and Energy Union objectives will be maintained across MSs, which would ensure a higher policy

impact at the aggregated level in the long-term. The EC stakeholder consultation confirmed this as the

majority of respondents were of the opinion that this PO will (considerably) improve the achievement

of the EU energy and climate objectives. Only a few indicated no change or a deterioration. The

advantage of PO3b against PO3a is that the integrated plan will not include all obligations but only the

selected ones, which ensures that information and detail will not be lost. This PO is expected to have

higher impact than PO1 and PO2.


The overall impact of PO3b on security of supply is expected to be positive, in case the binding

template is successfully designed and enables sufficient modularity. According to the REFIT FC

interviews there are though reservations whether the binding template enables the necessary flexibility

for the preparation of high-quality analytical planning documents as iteration with EC is sought to be

important in this respect. If this is addressed in the template design, it can be expected that the

integrated NECPs will help to streamline and bring together quantitative and qualitative information

relevant for this Energy Union dimension and hence avoid the information asymmetries and frictions

between qualitative national planning documents as observed today. This should substantially improve

the ability to draw EU-wide conclusions on aspects of security of supply.


Similar to PO2, the streamlining activities in PO3b offer a good opportunity for removing overlaps in

obligations and introduce efficiencies in reporting and planning in the area of energy market. The

benefit is especially expected in the issues where MSs, especially the ones on the same geographic

regions need to collaborate on improving electricity and gas exchange and transmission, creating a

common infrastructure and improving regional markets of energy. PO3b will have better impact in

comparison to PO3a approach of streamlining all obligation in one reporting system, which would risk of

creating unmanageable complexities on one hand, omitting some necessary details on the other. It is

also seen as better than PO2, because under PO3b all obligations will be overseen, while integrating the

selected ones and ensuring strong focus on necessary details through obligations that will stay

separately. The overall impact of PO3b is assessed as moderately positive.


As has been mentioned under PO3a, the interviewees and the analysis both show that integrating only

part of the current obligations is more desirable and feasible than integrating all current obligations,

unless these are first streamlined and integrated well in NECP, possibly in multiple documents. This will

ensure that detailed information and data is not lost but is still included in the integrated plan, while

the integrated plan can streamline and merge some of the national objectives and strategies, and the

single electronic system could integrate the energy statistics relevant for the energy efficiency

legislation. The binding nature of the single act and a mandatory template will also put a lot of


170

pressure on MSs to not fall behind reaching the 2030 energy efficiency target. Strong legal measures

support timely implementation.

The respondents in the EC stakeholder consultation did not distinguish between option PO3a and PO3b,

hence it is difficult to assess what their opinion on this was. In general, they viewed a mandatory

template and a single act as very positive in reaching the 2030 targets, including the energy efficiency

target. Taking into consideration the analysis of obligations and the aspects mentioned above, it is

expected that PO3b would have a high positive impact on reaching this Energy Union objective.


As is mentioned above, the respondents in the public consultation did not distinguish between PO3a and

PO3b. Under PO3a (and PO3b) there is a risk of losing valuable data and oversight in combining all

energy and climate obligations into one single legislative act. However, the advantages of merging

climate and energy into a more holistic governance approach are considerable. It could aid the

facilitation of synergies and mutually reinforcing effects in various energy (and climate) sectors. In this

PO, there is more room for mitigating the risk of losing data and oversight than in PO3a. Therefore, it is

expected that this PO can fully exploit the advantages and would have a high positive impact on

reaching the decarbonisation objectives.


As mentioned in PO3a, the existing obligations only indirectly link to this Energy Union objective, hence

it is expected that this option will have a high positive impact due to its mandatory nature. The

mandatory nature of the template and the single legislative act will also ensure that all Member States

will implement it. The main difference with PO3a is that not all obligations will be integrated in this

mandatory plan, which makes it more feasible and desirable to implement. However, the impact on this

objective is not expected to be different from PO3a as only a small part of the obligations are linked to

this objective.


171

Comparison of Policy Options 9 Summary of the analysis of impacts expected in policy options 9.1

The analysis of the impact of each policy option presented in the section 8 above is summarised in

Table 9-1. The table provides a comparison of POs against the baseline scenario and among each other.

One can see that the all POs will have the implementation cost which will range between EUR 13.8 mln

in baseline scenario to EUR 50.1 mln in PO2 (considering the option of building the new electronic

system).

• PO2 is the costliest option, followed by PO3a and PO3b that are EUR 14 and 23 mln less costly;

• At the same time PO3b with the estimated cost of EUR 27 mln is only EUR 6 mln above the cost of

the least ambitious option of PO1. Considering its much higher impact in other categories, this

extra cost of PO3b can be outweighed by the benefits;

• The difference of EUR 9 mln between the PO3a and PO3b is also remarkable pointing at possible

additional burden imposed by integrating all obligation under the single act, revision and

transposition of a higher number of legislations (31 on PO3a vs 21 in PO3a), as well as more

complex single act and more extensive and effort demanding NECP.

In terms of the annual cumulative cost for the MS associated with reporting/planning (including the

ones related to NECP), subcontracting and equipment ICT by the Members States, the cost patterns are

the following:

• PO2 is the costliest (EUR 29.4 mln/year), while PO1, PO3a and PO3b are rather comparable with

the respective annual costs of EUR 22.7 mln, EUR 21.9 mln/ and EUR 20.1 mln;

• PO3b is the only POs that is less costly than the baseline and achieves annual cost savings (EUR

1.1mln);

• In PO3b the cost efficiencies are achieved due to less burdensome planning and report processes

related to simpler and more straightforward NECP, as well as reduced burden on sectorial

obligations;

• Cost efficiencies are not achieved in PO2 and PO3a because the cost reductions through

integration and repeal of obligations are overtaken by more burdensome NECP coordination cost

to a large extent.

The analysis of expected benefits and policy impacts reinforces the perspective on the preference for

PO3b. It is clear that PO3b has highest positive impacts across many impact categories, while PO2

comes close in comparison. This might stem from the fact that the scope of streamlining in PO2 and

PO3b is similar, i.e. the same set of obligations to be integrated in NECP with the rest streamlined and

simplified. This is expected to deliver similar outcomes, such as obligations legally bind either via

sectoral legislations or via single legislative act, all contributing to NECP and using the single electronic

system for reporting. At the same time the PO2 can suffer from the lack of coordination and many risks

and uncertainties in implementation. Some preferences can still be observed for the PO3b due to

expectation of the higher positive impact on the better regulation objectives and on the overall energy

and climate objectives.


172

Table 9-1 Comparative summary of the impact in each POs

Types of impact analysed Baseline PO1 PO2 PO3a PO3b notes

Direct cost

Cost of implementation Cost of implementation for EC €3,112,000 €3,154,000 €9,004,500 €5,369,000 €3,613,000 one-time cost

Cost of implementation for MS in including NECP adoption €10,703,000 €17,479,000 €36,078,000 €24,556,000 €18,340,000 one-time cost

Administrative and reporting costs (ongoing)

All obligations related planning and reporting costs for EC no estimates

no estimates, but is not expected to change

no estimates, but is expected to somewhat reduce

no estimates, but is expected to substantially reduce

no estimates, but is expected to somewhat reduce

annual cost

All obligations related planning and reporting costs for MS €4,151,969 €4,151,969 €3,576,478 €1,984,290 €2,980,398 annual cost

NECP related planning and reporting cost for MS €- €1,501,500 €5,544,000 €7,392,000 €3,696,000 annual cost

Service outsourcing cost outsourcing all obligations in MS €8,994,595 €8,994,595 €10,590,362 €4,412,651 €5,294,848 annual cost

outsourcing NECP reporting and planning in MS €- €3,003,000 €11,088,000 €14,784,000 €7,392,000 annual cost

ICT / equipment cost Introducing centralised electronic reporting system (option 1: new system) by EC

€- €- €5,000,000 €6,000,000 €5,000,000 one-time cost

Introducing centralised electronic reporting system (option 2: integration into existing electronic system) by EC

€- €- €50,000 €75,000 €50,000 one-time cost

Maintenance of centralised electronic system by EC €- €- €100,000 €150,000 €100,000 annual cost

ICT and equipment cost for MS €8,007,949 €8,007,949 €9,605,145 €8,004,287 €8,004,287 annual cost

Cost for companies Cost related to mandatory and voluntary reporting/provision of data will not change likely to remain

unchanged likely to decrease

likely to decrease

likely to decrease, but NECP might require new data

annual cost

TOTAL DIERCT COSTS Total one-time implementation (option 1: incl. new electr. system) €13,815,000 €20,633,000 €50,082,500 €35,925,000 €26,953,000 one-time cost

Total one-time implementation (option 2: incl. existing electr. system) €13,815,000 €20,633,000 €45,132,500 €30,000,000 €22,003,000 one-time cost

Total ongoing cost (admin, ICT, outsourcing) €21,154,514 €22,656,014 €29,415,985 €21,943,229 €20,075,534 annual cost


173

Types of impact analysed Baseline PO1 PO2 PO3a PO3b notes

Direct benefit

Cost saving/loss (in ongoing costs) (comparison with Baseline) €- - €1,501,500 - € 8,261,471 - €788,715 €1,078,980 annual cost

Higher efficiency of reporting system 0 - -- - ++

Improved information quality 0 0 + -- ++

Simpler and more coherent reporting procedures 0 0 ++ +++ ++

Specific benefits for companies 0 0 + + +

Impact on policy process

Transparency of national and EU policies 0 + + - +

Better statistics (EU, MS) 0 + ++ - ++

Better national energy and climate policy 0 + + - ++

Impacts on Energy Union objectives Energy security, solidarity and trust + + + - +

A fully-integrated internal energy market + + + - ++

Energy efficiency as a contribution to the moderation of energy demand + + ++ +++ +++

Decarbonisation of the economy + + + ++ +++

An Energy Union for Research, Innovation and Competitiveness 0 + ++ +++ +++

Legend: Estimated strength of impact in comparison to the baseline option

Very strong positive impact +++

Strong positive impact ++

Positive impact +

No impact 0

Negative impact -

Strong negative impact --

Very strong negative impact ---

Evidence unclear n/a


175

Both the interviews and the results of the online stakeholders’ consultation also demonstrated the

higher preference for PO3 (No distinction was assumed between PO3and PO3b in the stakeholder

consultation survey). As noted in the policy option analysis sections, the feasibility of the PO3a was

questioned by majority of the interviewed stakeholders, while the online consultation pointed at risks

of integrating all reporting obligations under one single report. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that

the PO3b was favoured by a larger share of stakeholders in the online consultation and the interviews.

Table 9-2 below displays the statistics of the preference for POs, while Table 9-3 supports these

statistics by the assessments of these POs against the specific criteria. It shows the effect of three

different streamlining options (non-binding guidance, regulation in sectoral legislation and a new

comprehensive legislative act) on a variety of categories. It shows that regulating both planning and

reporting obligations by a new comprehensive legislative act covering all Energy Union dimensions (PO3)

is thought to have the most positive effect on the categories. Not surprisingly, it is the preferred option

by more half of the respondents. The remaining responses are evenly divided between the other two

streamlining options.

Table 9-2 Preference for the Policy options based on results of the stakeholder consultation

Note: Based on questions 24-26 of the public consultation; No distinction was assumed between PO3and PO3b in the stakeholder consultation survey

Table 9-3 Share of positive assessments of impacts expected in Policy Options by categories

Note: Based on questions 24-26 of the public consultation;


176

No distinction was assumed in PO3and PO3b in the stakeholder consultation survey Only the responses from National Regulatory Authorities, National Public Authorities and local authorities were taken into account (23 respondents from 16 Member States). Positive is the percentage of stakeholders who indicated “considerable improvement” and “improvement”, excluding those who gave no opinion. Green is >66%, Amber is 50-66%, Red is <50%.

Comparison of the policy options 9.2The criteria used for comparisons of policy options include effectiveness, efficiency, relevance

coherence and EU-added value as well as compliance with the subsidiary and proportionality

principles. Definitions of these criteria presented below:

• Effectiveness of the reporting and planning obligations in each policy option in providing

information on the impact of EU energy policies;

• Efficiency related to the justification of costs related to changes, proportionality of costs to the

benefits expected, overall administrative burden of EU energy reporting and planning obligations

for both Member States and other stakeholders, namely national/regional/local public agencies,

SMEs, businesses;

• Relevance or suitability of new reporting and planning obligations to the objectives of EU energy

policy, as well as of the Energy Union strategy. Availability of technologies and big data tools

suitable for new reporting system;

• Coherence and interaction in reporting and planning obligations in EU energy field, and with

reporting in Climate policy fields as well as among the MS

• Subsidiarity/EU-added value of the intervention by EC in streamlining the planning and reporting

obligations in energy field;

• Proportionality check is done to assess whether each policy option deliver the overall Energy

policy objectives, i.e. the five objectives of Energy Union Strategy namely: Achieving Energy

security, Integration of the EU energy market, improving Energy efficiency, addressing climate

change, enhance R&I and competitiveness in energy technologies;

• In this context, it also comprises the time for implementing policy options. The rationale for

introducing the feasibility is to bring the comparison as close as possible to the practical

challenges of the implementation of the analysed policy options;

• Finally, the cumulative cost of actions, including implementation and annual administration

cost are considered in comparison of the policy options.

Effectiveness 9.2.1

Effective informing of policy makers on impact of policies can be achieved via better design of

reporting and monitoring system. The analysis suggests that a single legislative act in PO3a and PO3b

will provide a more integrated vision on the reporting requirements across the five dimensions of the

Energy Union, hence reducing the risk of overlaps, duplications and redundancies more than PO2. The

mandatory template will help to adopt the changes brought by the single legislative act relatively

efficiently.

At the same time, it was noted that the integrated reporting might not be the effective in channelling

more detailed information and data. In this respect the PO3a and PO3b offer different opportunities.

While both offer a modern integrated system, PO3a will provide less detailed, and therefore poorer

quality of information needed for policy making due to wider scope of obligations and therefore

challenges in capturing many details and exhaustive data. PO3b in contrast has better possibilities for

collecting and channelling the data that is more detailed and information that is better suited to the


177

needs of the Energy Union policy objectives. To achieve the best effectiveness in monitoring and

reporting it was suggested that the system comprises a robust information database, a set of mandatory

quantitative and qualitative indicators, auxiliary indicators as well as benchmarking, peer review as

well as exchange of best practices in monitoring and reporting. This system should include an

enforceable surveillance mechanism that aims to identify potential risks early on, prevent non-

compliance, and correct them.

Impact of the soft guidance (PO1) is expect to be minimum or close to nil due to expected weaknesses

and non-deliveries of reporting on NECP. The situation however may vary from country to country.

However, the comprehensive and efficient information delivery for the EU policy making is not likely to

be the case in PO1.

Stakeholders consultation also largely supported that the best effectiveness of reporting and planning

obligations in providing information on impact of EU energy policies is expected in the PO3 (with higher

argumentation for selected integration, thus PO3b). 75% of stakeholders have positive assessment of

integration via single legislative act in offering better possibility to monitor performance and trends

that is in contrast to 43% and 13% trusting the changes via sectorial legislation (PO2) and soft guidance

(PO1) respectively in this aspects.

Efficiency 9.2.2

In analysing the efficiency one needs to look into costs and impact of the POs and analyse how much

the cost justifies the achieved outcomes and impacts. The cost calculation based on the adopted

assumptions showed that PO3b is the least costly option in the long run, while generate the highest

benefit in comparison to other POs. It is also the only option that generates annual savings in

comparison to the baseline. PO3a is second least costly option (EUR 1.9 mln above the cost of PO3b),

but it still more expensive than the baseline, therefore does not generate cost savings. It also provides

less benefits in comparison to PO3b. PO1 while being the third least costly option (just under EUR 2.5

mln higher than PO3b) is expected to be much weaker and often fail in terms of generating positive

outcomes. PO2 is less attractive in this respect due to significantly higher cost (over EUR 9 mln than in

PO3b) of annual reporting, and relatively weaker performance in terms of producing impact.

A single legislative act in PO3b will provide a more integrated vision on the reporting requirements

across the five dimensions of the Energy Union, hence reducing the risk of overlaps, duplications and

redundancies more than, for example, in PO2. At the same time a more selective scope and nature of

NECP and related reporting will allow to avoid unnecessary effort on coverage of reporting in less

directly relevant thematic areas as this is the case in PO3a.

Besides the right scope, PO3b is expected to achieve more positive outcomes in terms of securing the

good quality and more systematic information supply due mandatory nature of the new obligations and

a better definition of the scope of reporting and planning assured by the single legislative act. With this

information in mind looking into expected outcomes and impacts in each PO, demonstrate that the

higher return and efficiency can be achieved in PO3b.

All in all, the proportionality of costs and benefits is clearly the best in PO3b, while the overall

administrative burden on the public organisations is expected to be the lowest. Depending on the new

requirements and ambitions of NECP, the new reporting may increase the burden on the companies in


178

providing the new data needed for new NECP. But this burden is not expected to be significantly higher

than the current one, while the benefits for the overall policy can justify it.

The views of stakeholders who contributed during the EC consultations, on efficiency impact also

supports the above given conclusion. They showed the highest agreement on positive assessment of

efficiency of PO3 (assume here PO3b, 75% of all respondents), less agreement on positive assessment of

PO2 efficiency (29% of all respondents) and even less agreement on efficiency of PO1 (19% of all

respondents).

Relevance 9.2.3

Relevance or suitability of new reporting and planning obligations to the objectives of EU energy policy,

as well as of the Energy Union strategy is one of the most important elements or objectives of the

intervention assessed in the current study. Reforming planning and reporting obligation in each POs is

done with the purpose of feeding the right information and data for monitoring the progress in EU

energy Union objectives. NECP is expected to be structured in such a way that it consistently plans and

monitors the activities on each objective. The situation however might be different in various POs.

Under PO1 significant impact on the Energy Union objectives compared to the baseline is not foreseen

as the current and planned legislation is expected to remain valid post-2020. As the analysis suggests

introduction of NECPs, which will be a ‘soft’ policy instrument not enforced by any legislation, would

give rather weak push for improving the existing national energy and climate policies. It is not clear

whether the soft guidance will motivate the MS enough to alight their reporting system to the needs of

the Energy Union objectives, as current system of obligations will remain in place and keep being under

the mandate of the current legislations.

Relevance and suitability of the reporting to the policy objectives PO2 is expected to be somewhat

higher than under PO1 as legislative changes will take place and a single electronic reporting system is

expected to be introduced. The templates and guidance documents will remain voluntary as in PO1,

however, the sectoral legislation will be amended to support the integration and streamlining in line

with the NECP and the Energy Unions objectives. There is however a risk related to weak coordination

and poorer coherence across all legislations, as well as rather long time period required for

implementing the interventions. This will prevent from reaching the best outcomes in terms of securing

relevance of reporting and planning for the policy objectives.

Integration of all obligations under the PO3a has not been seen as a viable option by many stakeholders

in general. Even if the option is implemented, its main risk is that detailed and important information

will be lost if all obligations are integrated, which will have a negative impact on achieving the Energy

Union objectives.

Integration of selected obligations under the single legislative act assumed in PO3b is expected to

achieve better results in securing relevance of reporting and planning for the energy policy objectives.

This is due to the centralising the most relevant obligations under the NECP, thus keeping a solid focus

as well as depth on the Energy Union objectives. Keeping the less relevant obligations outside the NECP

will allow to avoid spreading the focus and keep the planning and reporting process more

straightforward and focused. All in all, PO3 is seen as the best scoring option in this criteria.


179

The issue of policy relevance was also actively discussed by the stakeholders. Many shared a concern

over the option of integrating all obligations under single reporting and planning system (PO3a). Such

approach while introduces a lot of simplifications and streamlining, might reduce the quality of

information and loose important details that are needed for policy making. In contrast to this the PO2

and PO3b can offer a better suited (more relevant) system offering both, well orientation towards

Energy Union strategy and feeding high quality and granularity of information and data to the decision

making process.

Availability of technologies and big data tools suitable for new reporting system is another criterion for

assessment of the best fit and relevance of the policy option. PO2, PO3a and PO3b assume

implementation of the electronic system, however combination with the formalised use of the

(mandatory) template might give a slightly higher assessment to PO3a and b. Among these two options,

PO3b will secure better relevance due to better scoping of data to be collected, that will be more

detailed and better focused on Energy Union objective than in PO3a, where the wider scope will create

prevent from ensuring collecting more detailed data.

Coherence 9.2.4

Better streamlined planning and reporting system is achieved through improving the coherence and

interaction of the reporting and planning obligations within the EU energy field, as well as with the

reporting in Climate policy fields

In improving the coherence PO1 is not expected to generate improvements because the obligations will

not change due to no legislative changes, while non-mandatory NECP will have a limited impact, if any.

It is also clear that the more targeted interventions under PO2, PO3a and PO3b will result in

streamlining and improved coherence of obligations. It is not immediately obvious which of these POs

will offer better results since all three options would assume different but comparably detailed process

of the inspecting and aligning of obligations. All options are based on legal enforcement.

However, it is more likely that the mandatory template for planning and reporting (used in PO3a and

PO3b) will ensure the coherence across Members states in their reports and plans’ structure and

content. Legislative provision will ensure that all MS will comply with the provided templates which will

ensure more standardised approach in packaging the information and presenting the comparable data.

In ensuring the coherence among the obligations in the area, the role of the single legislative act may

play a strong role, giving a stronger preference for the PO3a and PO3b. More coordinated than in the

PO2 approach in revising obligations, will allow to have better helicopter view on all obligations and

build the intervention actions from these inclusive and coordinated position. While developing the

single legislative act and “bundling” the set of energy obligations, the climate policy related obligations

can also be taken into consideration; this will surely be easier than in the decentralised process in PO2.

All in all in the ensuring the coherence across MS and obligations the PO3a and PO3b appear to have the

strongest potential. This conclusion is also supported by the assessment of the dominant majority of the

stakeholders (88%) who think that PO3 has a highest potential in contributing to better coherency

among reports and planning in MSs. 43% of consulted stakeholders think that PO2 can achieves this too.

And only 25% of stakeholders are see the value of PO1 in improving the coherence.


180

Subsidiarity/EU-added value 9.2.5

All options (besides the Baseline) assume some degree of EU intervention. These interventions are well

justified in all POs, because achieving the streamlining and better coherence is not possible without

top-down initiative.

In PO1 the role of the EU is minimal and is seen only the development of a soft guidance and non-

binding template by the EC. The analysis in this study has showed that this intervention will not create

changes in terms of streamlining due to lack of the legislative enforcement. Soft guidance and

templates might be useful in developing the NECP and preparing reports on it. However there is no

guarantee that all Member states will voluntarily provide the reports, or provide them regularly. This

situation will not be useful for the EC in structured monitoring the developments in energy policies

across the EU.

The high degree of EU intervention in terms of revision and streamlining of obligations is expected in

the PO2, PO3a and PO3b.

The role of the EU in PO2 will be in initiating the streamlining via revision of sectorial legislations. The

impact of these activities will be substantial as these will result in the changes in the obligations and

improvements in the coherence, effective addressing the policy making (as discussed above). However,

this option also requires more efforts by EC and EU resources, therefore the efficiency has shown to be

low. Thus the conclusion is that while the intervention by the EU is necessary, the intervention

approach in PO2 is suboptimal in terms of cost-efficiency.

The role of EU in the PO3a and PO3b is in initiating the changes via single act and offering structured

binding templates for planning and reporting. Considering the impact generated this role of EU is highly

justified in PO3b, as well as in PO3a which, however, scores lower than PO3b. As already discussed

above, the scoping of obligation under the single act in PO3b (in comparison to PO3a) results in better

quality of NECP, higher relevance and alignments to the policy objectives and better effectiveness in

addressing the policy changes. EU intervention cost is also lower in PO3b than in PO3a. Thus one can

conclude that EU role and its added value while present in both PO3 scenarios, it is better justified in

P03b.

EU role will also be seen in the monitoring of performances and trends of EU markets and putting in

place corrective measures if needed. The consultation results showed that the three quarter of the

consulted stakeholders think that the single legislative act can best ensure this, 43% are convinced

about the strong positive role of the interventions through sectorial legislations and a few (13%) of

them see positive role of the soft guidance.

56% of them also think that the single legislative act will be best in enabling the Commission to provide

substantial and useful advice and ensure uniform application of EU legislation, 36% believes that the

revision of sectorial legislation can assure this, while 20% believes that the soft guidance can be

practical.


181

Proportionality 9.2.6

Proportionality check is done to assess whether each policy option deliver the overall Energy policy

objectives, i.e. the five objectives of Energy Union Strategy namely: Achieving Energy security,

Integration of the EU energy market, improving Energy efficiency, addressing climate change, enhance

R&I and competitiveness in energy technologies.

Assessment of wider impact on Energy Union objectives presented in the analysis of the policy option

demonstrated that the Policy Option 3b is more likely to deliver better on all aspects of Energy Union

objectives. This is thanks to the balance between dedicated focus on the Energy Union dimensions a

Single legislative act on one hand, and deliveries of details, information and feedback from separate

obligations which is much needed in the policy making, ensuring (see also the Table 9-1, presenting the

summary of the assessment on each policy objective in each PO).

The analysis shows that it is not foreseen that introduction of a single act in PO1 brings significant

impact on the Energy Union objectives compared to the baseline option, as the current and planned

legislation is expected to remain valid post-2020. Except for some progress in the better R&I and

competitiveness dimension, the impact in PO1 and the baseline is seen to be rather comparable. Even

in the no PO1 intervention scenario one expect some developments due to the current policies that

specifically target Energy Union policy objectives. (see section 8.3.4).

Streamlining obligations via revision of sectorial obligation in PO2 is expected to generate positive

impact across all Energy Union objectives, which will be somewhat stronger than in PO1. The integrated

NECPs and online reporting system can help to streamline and bring together quantitative and

qualitative information relevant all Energy Union dimension and hence avoid the information

asymmetries and frictions between qualitative national planning documents as observed today. It will

have stronger impact in achieving energy efficiency objectives and addressing better R&I and

competitiveness (see section 8.4.4).

A mixed impact is expected from the PO3a addressing the Energy Union objectives. Under this PO, a

single legislative act will be developed which will integrate all EU energy acquis planning and reporting

obligations. The cumulative impact of PO3a on security of supply and integration of energy market are

seen negative. This is because many indicators (e.g. on energy supply) should be reported on much

more frequent basis (e.g. monthly) than it is envisaged for NECP. Another argument is that integration

of all obligation can create unnecessary layers of complexities and loss of information. On the other

hand, some positive prospects might be seen in addressing the decarbonisation, energy efficiency and

better R&I and competitiveness objectives, if the risk of losing details are mitigated (see section 8.6.4).

The analysis showed that PO3b suggesting the selective approach in streamlining via single legislative

act can produce substantially stronger than other POs positive impact across all Energy Union objective.

It is expected that a single act in addition to a mandatory template will address the Energy Union

objectives in a more targeted and coordinated way via the mandatory NECP, monitoring imposed by the

new legislative act, as well as higher commitment from national and local stakeholders to the Energy

Union objectives and implementation of NECP. Particularly strong impact is expected in the areas of

energy efficiency, decarbonisation, and building R&I and competitiveness. This is because of clearer

advantages of merging climate and energy into a more holistic governance approach (see also section

8.7.4).


182

Furthermore, these observations are also confirmed through the stakeholder consultation. 75% of the

stakeholders who joined the online consultation believe that the PO3 (here assumed PO3b) is can

contribute of Energy Union objectives. 43% of them consider so regarding the PO2, and only 13% believe

in positive contribution of PO1.

Time 9.2.7

Discussion and analysis of the POs has clearly demonstrated that the most time consuming PO is the

PO2. It is clear that amendment of every single legislation in the Energy area will result in a long lasting

process, requiring time for revision discussion and update of these legislations. The complexity is in the

facts that the process of amendments will need to ensure a good overview across all obligation and

streamlining among many of them in terms of planning and reporting time, content coverage, etc.

Additional time is needed for the follow up transpositions of the amended Directives and

implementation of regulations in every MS. It was suggested that time needed to deliver this POs might

reach up to 6 years, while the optimistic view suggested 3 years.

The least time consuming policy option (besides the Baseline scenario) is PO1, which formally requires

only the time for development of the soft guidance by the EC. Adoption of NECP by MS is not

mandatory, however some MSs will adopt it, which require at least 6 months.

Experience with adopting new legislations demonstrated that the process of development and adoption

of a new regulation can take between 1 to 3 years. Similar experience is expected with the activities on

single legislative act in PO3a and PO3b. One should also assume time needed for update of the

legislations as an effect of the single legislative act as well as implementation of these changes in the

MSs. However, in the process of development of the single act, these changes will be taken into

consideration and thus follow up changes in the sectorial legislations will be rather prompt, since the

single legislative act will technically take over the obligations from these legislations and simplify the

content. Due the wider scope of the affected legislations, one could also expect that slightly less time

is needed for implementing the interventions in PO3b than in PO3a. But this difference will not be

significant as for the revision process the obligations will be grouped.

Cost of implementation 9.2.8

The estimation of the costs of implementation discussed in the analysis of each PO, showed that the

costliest PO is PO2 with an estimated total (including the EC and MS costs) implementation cost of over

EUR 50 mln. Also a rather high, but still somewhat smaller costs of implementation are expected in

PO3a, which is estimated to be close to EUR 36 mln. Intervention in the PO3b are expected to cost

close to EUR 27mln, which us substantially lower than in PO3a. The least costly option is PO1 (besides

the baseline) with close to EUR 21 mln.

Cost of annual administrative activities 9.2.9

The annual cost of ongoing activities presented here includes reporting, planning, outsourcing, ICT cost

as well as the cost associated with NECP planning and reporting. The least costly option is PO3b with

around EUR 20mln needed for annual planning and reporting activities. Second least costly option

(besides the baseline) is PO3a, which is close to EUR 22 mln/year. This is followed by the PO1 with the

estimated annual budget close to EUR 23 mln. The PO2 is expected to have significantly higher burden

with the estimated annual cost of over EUR 29 mln.


183

Table 9-4 Comparison of policy options

Criteria for comparison

POLICY OPTIONS

Baseline PO1 PO2 PO3a PO3b

Baseline Soft guidance Sectoral

legislation

Single Act/

all

obligations

Single Act/

selected

obligations

Effectiveness 0 0 + ++ +++

Efficiency 0 - -- - ++

Coherence 0 0 + ++ ++

Relevance 0 + ++ - +++

Subsidiarity/EU-added

value 0 0 + ++ +++

Proportionality + + ++ + +++

Time required to

implement action 0 1 years 3-6 years 1-3 year 1-3 years

Cost of implementation €13,815,000 €20,633,000 €50,082,500 €35,925,000 €26,953,000

Cost of annual

administrative activities €21,154,514 €22,656,014 €29,415,985 €21,943,229 €20,075,534

Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence Relevance Subsidiarity/EU-added value Proportionality

Estimated strength of impact in comparison to the baseline option

+++ Very strong positive impact ++ Strong positive impact + Positive impact 0 No impact - Negative impact -- Strong negative impact --- Very strong negative impact n/a Evidence unclear

Timing of action N of years Cumulative cost of action Eur


185

Conclusions and Recommendations 10 Conclusions of the Evaluation 10.1

Effectiveness: planning and reporting have a positive impact

The planning and reporting obligations have a positive contribution against the vast majority of the

objectives. Tracking compliance is the objective with the most positive contribution from the

obligations. The results from the survey and interviews support this, with a large majority of the

obligations deemed highly effective in reaching their objective, and most of the other obligations

deemed moderately effective.

Efficiency: benefits of planning and reporting are certain and for a large extent proportionate to

the costs

Planning and reporting make an important contribution to achieving policy objectives, even if it is not

known how much of the benefits of each piece of legislation can be attributed to the reporting and

planning obligations. These obligations are useful in bringing forward changes at the national level,

particularly the planning obligations.

Many obligations are very burdensome for MSs and the Commission. But the benefits are recognized as

well. The comparison between benefits and costs shows that for more than half of the respondents, the

costs incurred are somewhat, or to a great extent, proportionate to the benefits achieved, even though

some energy areas, such as energy efficiency have much higher costs than other areas. Planning and

reporting obligations contribute to improved compliance, transposition checking, monitoring of the

implementation, better quality data and improved transparency. As regards the costs of these

obligations, they vary widely between each energy policy area as well as per obligation and Member

State.

Electronic platforms and common templates are used for 24 obligations and considered very useful and

practical by the Member States, but there is not enough evidence to prove that these decrease the

administrative burden of reporting.

Coherence: some overlaps and lack of coherence as regards frequency, deadlines and related fields

There are some inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the current obligations. The timing and periodicity

varies from every week up to every 10 years, which imposes a challenge for streamlining obligations.

The current obligations present some overlaps, with Member States reporting the same information to

multiple entities or under different legal bases, and different entities sometimes producing separate

reports on the same topic. There is also room for improvement in the coherence between obligations in

the fields of energy and climate change.

Relevance: obligations are generally fit for the purpose they are intended for

Virtually all of the rationales for the planning and reporting obligations in each piece of legislation are

relatively easy to allocate to one of the Energy Union objectives.


186

EU added value: reporting obligations contribute to the coordination of EU energy policy but the

effects on alignment of Member States’ energy policy are not consensual


Member States’ energy policy are not consensual. The collation of EU level data enabled by the

reporting obligations clearly helps with the coordination of EU energy policy, as the data provides the

means of monitoring EU level progress. It appears that the EU added value varies between policy areas,

with a more positive contribution in those areas where there are relatively coherent plans and data

standards (e.g. renewable energy) but less so where the differences are larger and arguably more

ingrained.

If the purpose of a EU level energy policy is to align the objectives of Member States, leaving them

largely free to decide the details of how these objectives are achieved, then the EU added value of

reporting is largely related to the collection and collation of individual MS data. Besides, the collation

of EU level data, and information on policies and measures, does enable MSs to learn from each other,

but it is hard to prove causality in the design of individual MS policies.

Conclusions of the Impact Assessment 10.2

Eight prominent areas of the existing planning and reporting obligations in the energy field have 10.2.1

been identified as requiring further action

The results of the REFIT Fitness Check evaluation of the existing planning and reporting obligations in

the energy field highlighted eight problem areas, which represent the most prominent obstacles and

inefficiencies with respect to reaching the defined Energy Union objectives. The Table 10-1 below

summarises these problem areas.

Table 10-1 Overview of the problem areas identified and the corresponding evidence for them Problem area Evidence

Problem 1: General lack of overview regarding reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis

• A variety of obligations creating an obscure overall picture of who is reporting to

whom, at what level, on what, and when.

• Interviews revealed that the use/purpose of the reported data is not always clear

to the officials responsible for reporting.


• Most of the MSs interviewed during the REFIT FC view fulfilling the reporting

obligations as very burdensome administratively. The REFIT FC survey results

indicate that data collection, preparation to fit the reporting requirements, and

filling in the form account for about 71% of the overall reporting costs. According

to several survey respondents, the level of required detail results in an important

cost for their administrations.

• REFIT FC survey results highlighted that ‘the number of reporting stakeholders’

(20% of all respondents) and ‘the size of the MS’ (19% of all respondents) are

among the most important factors influencing the administrative burden of

planning and reporting obligations.

• Annual progress reports where the MSs have to report on a lot of (statistical)

details are seen as the most burdensome and of limited value, since a significant

share of energy related data is already available from Eurostat.

• The REFIT FC interviewees from EC similarly highlighted that the current system

requires huge amounts of detailed data, resulting in reports of up to hundreds of


187

Problem area Evidence

pages. Templates for collecting the data generally work well when used; however,

the data is sometimes still reported by MSs in different formats.


• Several inconsistencies and overlapping obligations exist in the current

requirements: MSs report the same information to multiple entities, under

different legal bases, or different organisations produce separate reports on the

same topics. 41% of REFIT FC survey respondents indicate that they report the

same data under more than one reporting obligation.

• The duplications stem mainly from inclusion of general aspects in various

reporting obligations, overlap of specific pieces of legislation and provisions in the

EU energy legislation that oblige MSs to collect and report energy statistics

already dealt with by Eurostat. From the 81 identified energy indicators that are

reported on by MSs, 27 indicators show a complete match with data from

Eurostat.

• The most complicated area consists of those MS obligations which are reported to

the Commission and other organisations, such as ENTSO-E, ENTSO-G or joint

conventions.

• Around 20% of REFIT FC survey respondents highlight redundancy of reporting and

planning obligations as a significant factor affecting the administrative burden.

Several Commission representatives in REFIT FC interviews also emphasised that

there are reporting obligations which do not lead to useful outputs. Eurostat and

ACER also recognise this issue.

• The REFIT FC interviewees from EC also pointed out that obligations established in

legislation and fixed via templates cannot always be amended rapidly enough to

satisfy the evolving information needs for policy-making. Hence, it should be

carefully weighted to what level of detail the reporting requirements should be

elaborated in the legislation texts themselves.


• While the REFIT FC survey shows an overall agreement that reporting obligations

generally contribute to collecting data on a consistent basis to allow comparisons

and benchmarking, there is evidence that the consistency of indicators should be

improved in some cases.

• Data standards are predominantly set at the national level, so it is unclear to

what extent the data are comparable and coherent between MSs.

• There are occasional differences between the data reported in national reports

and the EU reports, since national reports are based on data from national

statistical agencies and other national sources, while the data reported for EU

reports is based on EUROSTAT data. This results, e.g., in significant efforts for

ACER to resolve the mismatch.

• If the data gathered at a national level matches the level of detail or

classification required by the EC, the administrative burden of reporting is lower.

However, if the MS needs to retrieve data at another level of detail or

classification than what is normally collected at national level, then the

administrative burden of doing so is very high.


188



• The results of the REFIT FC survey indicate that there are perceived

inconsistencies in the timing and/or periodicity of reporting obligations. Overall,

24 out of 67 respondents indicated inconsistencies in the timing of different

obligations, 21 indicated inconsistencies regarding the periodicity of reporting,

while 22 respondents saw inconsistencies in both timing and periodicity.

• There are a number of reporting obligations on similar topics that have different

deadlines for submission. This could lead to different or evolving data and thus

different results and conclusions (although the topics are similar).

• For some directives, the frequency of the update should be more in line with the

topic of the obligation.

• The ACER representative interviewed for the REFIT FC reported having

experienced problems with access to data, due to the lack of mandate for data

collection from ENTSOs.


• There are multiple electronic reporting systems that are used for various

obligations. In general, REFIT FC interviewees support the extension or

establishment of a unified electronic reporting system in order to: 1) reduce time

and administrative burden; 2) allow for enhanced comparability between MS

reports; and 3) reduce duplication and reporting overlaps.

• Countries with larger administrations are more hesitant regarding the introduction

of a new electronic system. A new electronic system could pose additional

administrative burden in terms of training and adaptation time, and may also

mean a significant effort for the Commission to implement such a system.

• There has been a case where the Memorandum of Understanding required to

ensure data security on the reporting portal was not compatible with national

law. This illustrates the possible difficulties of accommodating the variety of

national legal and administrative provisions, especially with regards to data

security.


• REFIT FC results noted a number of positive contributions of reporting and

planning obligations to EU value added, e.g. the provision of information that is

not available from other sources, the increase of transparency of MSs energy

policies. However, there is scope for improvement. A large share of REFIT FC

interviewees consider that reporting does not lead to the alignment of approaches

or improved cooperation among the MSs, but that it helps the functioning of

national markets. The contribution to alignment of approaches varies between

policy areas, with a more positive contribution in those areas where there are

relatively coherent plans and data standards (e.g. renewable energy) but less so

where the differences are larger and arguably more ingrained.

• There are mixed results on the issue if reporting is improving coherence of policy

making within MSs.


189



• There is an inherent trade-off between comparability and flexibility of reporting.

The comparability of MSs data requires concrete and systematic guidelines for

reporting, while the subject area and differences among MSs energy systems call

for a certain degree of flexibility in reporting requirements.

• There is a fundamental difference between statistical data reporting and provision

of analytical reports. The REFIT FC survey indicates that the preparation of the

qualitative analysis for the reports takes up to 20% of the overall reporting costs.

Planning obligations include mostly qualitative analysis and any templates of these

obligations have to involve a notable degree of flexibility.

• When it comes to qualitative input, the introduction of electronic platforms does

not substantially reduce the amount of effort required.

• As regards the comprehensive Preventive Action Plans, Emergency Plans and Risks

Assessments under the Regulation 994/2010, more detailed guidelines and support

from the EC is necessary to improve the quality and coherence of reports.

The four policy options and their related expected impacts 10.2.2

A summary overview of the main elements of the four policy options analysed can be found in the table

below. The main objective of these policy options is to streamline the existing planning and reporting

obligations in the EU energy and climate legislations. In the baseline option, it is assumed that no EU

action is taking place post-2020.

Table 10-2 Main elements of the policy options Policy option 1

Soft guidance/no legislative change

Policy option 2 Revision of Sectoral legislation

Policy option 3a/b New Single legislative act

• No changes in existing obligations post 2020

• Commission provides a non-mandatory soft guidance and soft template for planning and progress reporting

• No single integrated electronic reporting

• Revision/amendment of existing legislation post 2020 and

introducing changes in each towards streamlining of planning and reporting obligations (on an

ongoing basis)

• Commission provides a non-mandatory soft template for planning and progress reports

• Commission establishes a single electronic reporting system

• Repeal of existing reporting

obligations in all (PO3a) or most (PO3b) legislations post 2020

• New Single legislative act to streamline and integrate all (PO3a)

or selected (PO3b) obligations in one report

• Commission provides a template for

planning and progress reports as part of the legislative act

• Commission establishes a single and

integrated electronic reporting system based on the template

Notes: • Application of templates is not mandatory in PO1 and PO2 • Application of templates is mandatory in PO3a and PO3b • Single electronic reporting system (PO1 and PO2) will allow submission of reports on legislative obligations

and energy/climate data by the Members States. • PO2: long process, as each legislation has to be revisited one by one in order to introduce

changes in reporting and planning obligations with purpose of streamlining them across all legislations.

• PO3a and PO3b: fast process, as a new Single Legislative Act will eliminate the reporting and planning obligations in all (or most of) legislations and impose one centralised reporting system.


190

The impact of each policy option has been assessed according to several aspects:

(1) Direct cost, including cost of the initial implementation of the interventions and cost of ongoing

reporting/planning activities;

(2) Direct benefits, including cost saving, higher efficiency of reporting system, improved information

quality, simpler and more coherent reporting procedures, and specific benefits for companies;

(3) Indirect or wider impact, i.e. on transparency of national and EU policies, better statistics, better

national energy and climate policy; and

(4) Impact on Energy Union objectives, i.e. the five dimension - energy security, solidarity and trust;

a fully-integrated internal energy market; energy efficiency as a contribution to the moderation of

energy demand; decarbonisation of the economy; and enhance R&I in low carbon technologies and

help financing such projects.

The baseline option leads to no improvements of the situation, but not necessarily to low costs

No changes to the current situation will not likely to lead to any benefits. There might be a possibility

that some incremental improvements in efficiency of the reporting emerge due to accumulated MSs and

EC experience from learning-by-doing, however this will not be significant. The planning and reporting

obligations will remain inefficient, partly incoherent, and the quality of information will not change.

This scenario by definition implies no savings in administrative costs.

The soft approach (Policy Option 1) leads to slight improvements but also to increased costs

The situation is expected to remain more or less similar to the baseline with the exception of increased

costs for the implementation and adoption of a voluntary National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP). The

administrative costs of obligations are not expected to change as these will not be changed from a legal

point of view, hence they still remain in force. The voluntary adoption of the NECP is expected to lead

to no change against the baseline with regard to the eff of reporting system (as another requirement

was added, even if voluntary), information quality and benefit for companies. Some minor

improvements can arise for coherence of the reporting procedures. The analysis shows that a voluntary

soft approach will slightly improve the transparency of policies, statistics and national energy and

climate policy, as well as Energy Union objectives.

Streamlining and revising obligations in the sectoral legislation (Policy Option 2) increases

considerably the administrative burden of reporting and planning obligations, and introduces other

significant one-time costs

The introduction of a legislative option would considerably increase the direct costs, in particularly the

cost of implementation and setting up this new system. Revision of all the relevant pieces of

legislations is costly, as well as introduction of a single electronic reporting system. This option showed

to be the most resource demanding among all policy options. Neither this option would achieve cost

savings in the annual administrative cost of reporting and planning obligations and will bear the higher

burden across all options. On the other hand, such a legislative option would somewhat improve the

benefits vis-à-vis the baseline and PO1 as the improved efficiency of the reporting system (the most

important benefit), improved quality of information, improved coherence of procedures and

transparency, better statistics as well as better national energy and climate policy due to the

introduction of the NECP supported by the obligations in the sectorial legislations. This would also

improve the reaching of the Energy Union objectives.


191

Integrating selected planning and reporting obligations into a single legislative act (Policy Option

3a) will increase the complexity in the planning and reporting with limited value added for policy

processes

Policy Option 3a integrating all reporting and planning obligations into a single act. It is considered as

not feasible due to the complexity of integrating all obligations into a single act. Some of these

obligations do not fit very well with the Energy Union objectives, while others are too detailed to be

included. If the PO3a is still implemented it will generate rather large, complex, but less informative

planning and reporting system, which will be burdensome and bring limited value added for policy

making. Although it might have the best overview of all obligations, which is helpful in managing their

coherence. All in all, the PO3a is likely to generate mixed impact and is not seen as the optimal option.

Integrating selected planning and reporting obligations into a single legislative act (Policy Option

3b) has been considered as the preferred option

Policy Option 3b integrates only a subset of reporting and planning obligations into a single act. PO3b is

seen as tackling drawbacks seen in PO3 and at the same time guaranteeing a legislative action,

consistent and coherent collection of data and information due to the mandatory template, and

coherent obligations due to a single act. It is also the only policy option that actually generated the

cost saving in annual planning and reporting activities. The impact on the policy processes and

objectives is seen as largely positive.

Addressing the problems in the Policy Options 10.2.3

To help tackle the identified problems of the existing planning and reporting obligations in the EU

Energy acquis, four policy options have been analysed and compared against the baseline (where no EU

action is taking place). The eight identified problem areas are mapped against the policy options in

order to assess to what extent they contribute to tackling the individual problems. This assessment

supports our recommendations that follow below.


192

Table 10-3 Mapping policy options against the identified problems

Problem area Baseline PO1 (Soft approach) PO2 (Sectoral

legislation) PO3a (Single act, all)

PO3b (Single act, partial)

Problem 1: General lack of overview regarding reporting obligations in the EU Energy acquis

Problem remains

Very small improvement due to the introduction voluntary template and additional EC guidance

Considerable improvement but no full overview as obligations remain in sectoral legislation

Problem is fully solved due to a unified and mandatory report template

Problem is almost fully solved due the mandatory report template, yet some obligations remain in sectoral legislation


Problem remains Problem remains as no legislative change is introduced

Considerable improvement as obligations are streamlined with a legislative change

Problem is tackled as all obligations are repealed in sectoral legislation and merged into one act, but there is a high risk of losing important data

Problem is solved without losing important information and data



Problem is tackled as duplications and redundancies are taken out of sectoral legislation

Problem is tackled as duplications and redundancies are taken out of the sectoral legislation

Problem is tackled as duplication and redundancies are taken out of the sectoral legislation


Some small improvements may gradually happen due to accumulated MSs and EC experience with the reporting process and learning-by-doing

Very small improvement due to the introduction voluntary template and additional EC guidance, but not much impact as current legislation remains in place

Problem could be tackled as streamlining through a voluntary template is supported by a legislative change, yet the risk of non-adoption of separate legislative amendments remains

Problem is tackled as all obligations are streamlined and integrated through a single legislative act, but there is a high risk of losing important data

Problem is tackled as relevant obligations are streamlined and integrated through a single legislative act


193

Problem area Baseline PO1 (Soft approach) PO2 (Sectoral

legislation) PO3a (Single act, all)

PO3b (Single act, partial)



Problem could be tackled as obligations are revised through a legislative process and streamlined in a voluntary integrated plan, yet the risk of non-adoption of separate legislative amendments remains

Problem is fully tackled as all obligations are integrated into one mandatory plan supported by a single legislative act

Problem is fully tackled as the majority of obligations are integrated through a single legislative act and others are streamlined in sectoral legislation


Problem remains

Problem remains as no single electronic reporting system is introduced

Problem is solved as single electronic reporting is introduced

Problem is solved as single electronic reporting system is introduced

Problem is solved as single electronic reporting system is introduced



Considerable improvement as the revision of sectoral legislation leads to better integration of the Energy Union strategy and its objectives

Improvements due to a single legislative can be expected only in separate Energy Union objectives, while the inclusions of all obligations under a single report will exacerbate the problem in other areas

Problem is very considerably improved as a single legislative act should lead to better integration of the Energy Union strategy and its objectives



Introduction of a voluntary template and a single electronic reporting system could importantly help to address the dilemma between data comparability and flexibility

Introduction of a single mandatory template is expected to exacerbate the problem significantly

Introduction of a mandatory template that enables modularity could improve the dilemma between data comparability and flexibility


195

Recommendations 10.3

Overall recommendations for the planning and reporting obligations 10.3.1

Overall, our analysis suggests that there is quite some scope for improvement in terms of:

• Aligning the frequency of reporting obligations on similar or related topics;


indicators);




These principles guide our recommendations.

Table -10-4 Recommendations for each of the identified problem areas Problem area Recommendations for the European Commission

Problem 1: General lack of

overview regarding reporting

obligations in the EU energy acquis

• Combine the obligations in one overarching framework

• Strengthen communication on how data are used by the European

Commission

• Incite the Member States to exchange on their experience in collecting and

collating data

• Incite the Member States to draft guidelines on procedures to follow for

collecting and collating data

Problem 2: Large amount of data

to be reported and analysed by

MSs and the Commission

• Refine and streamline the level of detail for the data that is collected from

the Member States

• Develop templates for data collection (by preference, all statistical data

collection should be organised by Eurostat)

Problem 3: Duplications and

redundancies in reporting adding

to administrative burden

• Liaise with other organisations (in particular Eurostat, but also ENTSO-E,

ENTSOG) to ensure homogeneity in data collection (when the data is also

collected by these organisations)

• Integrate obligations under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

(EPBD) into the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED)

• Increase coordination with the respective DGs (DG MOVE, DG GROW and DG

AGRI) for the other sectors concerned by energy efficiency (transport,

industry, agriculture)

Problem 4: Lack or inconsistencies

of indicators to be reported

• Refine and streamline the consistency of indicators

• Incite the Member States to ensure that their standards are consistent with

each other

Problem 5: Lack of coherence in

the timing and frequency of

reporting obligations

• Refine and streamline the timing and periodicity of reporting obligations

Problem 6: Lack of unified and

systematic electronic reporting

• Discuss with the Member States whether and how a unified electronic

reporting system could be established and what functionalities it should

entail

Problem 7: The potential of the EU

added value is not fully exploited

• Better define the linkages between reporting and planning obligations with

the alignment of approaches used by MS or improved cross county

cooperation

Problem 8: Differences between

quantitative vs. qualitative

reporting

• Design a modular template enabling submission of the qualitative

information in a more structured report organised by sections


196

Recommendations for the national energy and climate plans (NECP) 10.3.2

To ensure progress on the objectives of the Energy Union, the European Commission will present a

legislative initiative on streamlining of planning and reporting requirements and present a template for

the structure of integrated national energy and climate plans (NECPs).99 The NECP should include: the

current situation in energy policy; objectives, measures and policies for the five EU Energy Union

dimensions; and integrated projections of impact and indicators for measuring it.

From the evaluation study, we can draw the following recommendations for the NECP:

• Energy and climate related obligations should be integrated in the NECP as much as possible.

This will improve the overview of the reporting and planning obligations in the EU Energy

acquis, as well as supporting interaction between climate and energy policies;

• Nuclear energy obligations should be kept separate, due to the specific topic and the different

legal background. The content of the nuclear energy obligations is very technical and they

generally have a lower reporting frequency;

• Internal Energy Market obligations require very technical and detailed information from several

reporting entities, such as ACER, ENTSO-E, ENTSOG, and NRAs. Integrating all these obligations

in the NECP would probably not improve the overview of the energy acquis nor support the

interaction between climate and energy policies. The large amount of technical (but useful)

information could be detrimental to the effectiveness of the NECP. They should be streamlined

as much as possible with Eurostat and within the sector;

• Backward-looking (reporting) quantitative information should be reported directly to Eurostat,

to prevent delays in reporting and ensure transparency and access to information. This would

involve some legal changes in the mandate of Eurostat;

• Forward-looking (planning) and qualitative information should be reported to the European

Commission;

• Plans should be updated frequently to ensure effectiveness, at least every 1 or 2 years. The

planning obligations should be simplified to diminish administrative burden. Progress reports

should be directly integrated in these plans;

• Strong coordination between the responsible DGs (at EU level) and national departments (at

MS level) is key to a good turnaround time of the NECP. Sections in the NECP should be divided

amongst the responsible policy officers.

Recommendations related to the impact assessment 10.3.3

Recommendations to streamline and integrate current planning and reporting obligations in the EU

energy acquis

• The PO2, PO3a and PO3b will improve streamlining and integration of current obligations

through a voluntary or mandatory template for an integrated national energy and climate plan

supported by legislative actions;

• It is expected that PO3b would reach this objective the best as it integrates only relevant

obligations rather than all (as in option 3a), and at the same time this integration happens

through a single legislative act rather than through revision of sectoral legislation (such as in

PO2);

99 COM(2015) 572 Annex 2 – Guidance to Member States on National Energy and Climate Plans as part of the Energy Union Governance


197

• PO3b will also provide an overview of obligations supporting the five dimensions of the Energy

Union strategy, which is not the case in policy option 2, where this support will remain in

sectoral legislation;

• This streamlining and integration through legislative approaches will also help to tackle the

problem of large amount of data to be reported and analysed by the Member States and the

Commission, which will not be the case under a policy option 1, soft approach. Any

duplications and redundancies should be tackled through the legislative options as well. This

supports further streamlining and integration;

• It is important to bear in mind that streamlining and integration of obligations cannot play a

major role in boosting a progress in Energy Union objectives. There are many other barriers

and drivers that can play a bigger role.

Recommendations to decrease the administrative burden of reporting (ongoing costs)

• Given the assumptions, the only option that offers cost savings in terms of ongoing

administrative and reporting costs is policy option 3b, which streamlines selected existing

reporting and planning obligations into a single legislative act and a mandatory integrated

national energy and climate plan. This option is also advantageous since it performs better in

delivering the positive impact.

Recommendations to increase the benefits of a reporting system

• Both POs 3a and 3b are expected to considerably increase the benefits of reporting, decrease

inconsistencies and incoherence between reporting and planning obligations, including

statistical indicators. However PO3b has clear advantage over policy option 3a as it maintains

the desired focus on the obligation that are more relevant to Energy Union objectives and

avoids unnecessary burden of extensive coverage assumed in NECP covering all obligation in

PO3a.

• The introduction of a single electronic reporting system will provide further efficiencies and

coherence, however such system will need to be well designed to ensure it is simple and

straightforward to use both for the MSs and the EC.

Recommendations for the preferred policy option

• There only one policy option that come out as the best possible to reach the objectives of

introducing a coherent and integrated Energy Union governance framework for reporting and

planning obligations – PO3b (removing part of obligations from sectoral legislation and

integrating it into NECP through a single legislative act, while keeping part of obligations in

sectoral legislation, those that would benefit from staying separate from NECP).

According to the analysis in this report, policy option 3b is recommended because:

• It is the only option that ensures annual cost savings unlike other policy options having higher

annual cost in comparison to the baseline. While the initial cost for implementing this option is

significantly lower than comparable alternatives (PO3a and PO2);

• It allows for the necessary legislative changes to be made to the existing system, which are

needed for any substantial streamlining and integration of energy and climate obligations to

happen. Without legislative changes, the current system will remain in place as legislation will

have to be followed.


198

• PO3b allows for the integration of part of obligations into a new single legislative act giving it

a strong legal basis. PO3b also allows for part of obligations to remain in sectoral legislation,

in particular of those that (a) do not fit into the integrated NECP and/ or (b) would benefit

more from staying separate from an integrated plan, e.g. as they convey very detailed

information about a particular subject matter. This way, the future system would not be

risking losing important data and information through integration (as could be the case in

policy option 3a where all obligations would be integrated).

• From the analysis, it seems to be of a lesser importance whether the template for the NECP is

mandatory or voluntary. A mandatory template is expected to contribute to greater

consistency between data reported by different Member States, however, it also offers less

flexibility. On the other hand, even with a mandatory template there might still be differences

in reporting between Member States, and even a mandatory template could be flexible enough

to accommodate country specificities.

• PO3b introduces a single electronic reporting system, which is seen positively if developed and

used adequately.

• Moreover, timewise PO3b is preferable, e.g. to PO2 as amending all sectoral legislation as in

PO2 could be more time-consuming than repealing part of obligations from sectoral legislation

at once (as in PO3b) by a single legislative act.


199

ANNEXES


201

Annex A: Complete list of obligations within the scope of this study

Legal basis Intervention logics Relation to Energy Union Dimensions

Sectoral Legislation

Name / description of the sectoral legislation Art. Description of obligation

Responsible entity

Compliance

Progress checking

Public confidence

Knowledge sharing

Intelligence/Market

transparency


Other

Security of supply

The Energy Market

Efficiency

Decarbonisation

R&D

No obvious fit to

any Energy Union

Dimensions


Directive 94/22/EC


9 Annual report on prospecting, exploration and production MS x - x - - - - x x - - - -

8(2)

Report on the conditions for granting and using authorization for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons - on the situation of entities in third countries and on the state of any negotiations undertaken with those countries or in the framework of international organizations

EC x - - x - - - x x - - - -



7 (1-4) Report on overall adequacy of the electricity system to supply current and projected demands for electricity MS - - - x x x - x x - - - -

7 (5) Report on investment intentions their contribution to the objectives set out in Article 1(1)

EC - - - x x - - x x - - - -



22 Report on progress and investments made in projects of common interest MS x - - - - - - x x x x - -



27

Ex post evaluation examining the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEF and its impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as its contribution to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the scale and results of support used with a view to attaining climate-change objective

EC - x - - - - - x x x x - -



5(5)

Consolidated Report: Evaluation of progress achieved, recommendations, evaluation of consistent implementation of the Union-wide consistent implementation of the Union-wide network development plans with regard to the energy infrastructure priority corridors and areas

ACER - x - x - - - x x - - - -



8 Report on information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements (IGA) between Member States and third countries in the field of Energy

EC x - x - - - - x x - - - -


202




Responsible entity

Compliance

Progress checking

Public confidence

Knowledge sharing

Intelligence/Market

transparency


Other

Security of supply

The Energy Market

Efficiency

Decarbonisation

R&D

No obvious fit to

any Energy Union

Dimensions



3 and 5

Reporting on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union MS - x x - - - - x - - - - -



10 Cross-sector analysis of the structural evolution and perspectives of the Union’s energy system EC - - x x - - - x x - - - -



34 Evaluation report on ACER Starts 2013 EC x x x - - - - - x - - - -

13 inputs to annual ACER activity report ACER x x x - - - - x x - - - -

11 ACER Annual Report internal markets in electricity and natural gas ACER - - x x x x - x x x x - -



1 Summary report on the operation of this Directive MS - - - - x x - - x - - - - Annex

I Annex I: Gas prices reports MS - - - - x x - - x - - - -

Annex II Annex II: Electricity prices report MS - - - - x x - - x - - - -

8 Report on the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users EC - - - x x - - - x - - - -



37(1) (e) 1. National Regulatory Authority annual report MS x x - - - - - - x x x - -

4 2. Monitoring of security of supply by NRA MS - - - x - - - - x x x - -

47 Overall progress report on internal market of electricity; should include MS measures for improving competition +/- recommendations

EC x x - - - - - - x x x - -

22

Submit a national ten-year network development plan based on existing and forecast supply and demand, containing efficient measures in order to guarantee the adequacy of the system and the security of supply; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

TSO's - - - - x - - x x - - - -

Directive Common rules for the 22 Submit a national ten-year network development plan based TSO's - - - - x - - x x - - - -


203




Responsible entity

Compliance

Progress checking

Public confidence

Knowledge sharing

Intelligence/Market

transparency


Other

Security of supply

The Energy Market

Efficiency

Decarbonisation

R&D

No obvious fit to

any Energy Union

Dimensions

2009/73/EC

internal market in natural gas

on existing and forecast supply and demand, containing efficient measures in order to guarantee the adequacy of the system and the security of supply; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

41(1) e 1. NRA annual report MS x x - - - - - - x x x - -

5 2. Monitoring of security of gas supply by NRA MS - - - x - - - - x x x - -

52 Overall progress report on internal market of gas; should include MS measures for improving competition +/- recommendations

EC x x - - - - - - x x x - -



28 Report on implementation of financial assistance to projects in the field of energy EC x x x - - - - x - x x - -

Council Decision 1999/280 (and its implementing acts provided in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014)


3.1

MS shall communicate to the COM: a) crude oil supply cost cif, b) the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of all taxes in force

MS - - - - - x - x x - - - -

3.2 MS shall communicate to the COM: Consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes in force

MS - - - - - x - x x - - - -

4 COM to publish crude oil supply cost cif (and the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of duties and taxes charged)

EC - - - - x - - x x - - - -

4 COM to publish consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes charged (weekly Oil Bulletin) EC - - - - x - - x x - - - -



7(2) and (3)

Market Monitoring Report and recommendations from Agency to COM. National regulatory authorities shall cooperate at regional level and with the Agency in carrying out the monitoring of wholesale energy market

ACER - - x x x - - x x - - - -

Regulation 714/2009

Conditions for access to the network for cross- 8 Adopt a non-binding Community-wide ten-year network

development plan, (Community-wide network development ENTSO-E - x - - x - - x x - x x -


204




Responsible entity

Compliance

Progress checking

Public confidence

Knowledge sharing

Intelligence/Market

transparency


Other

Security of supply

The Energy Market

Efficiency

Decarbonisation

R&D

No obvious fit to

any Energy Union

Dimensions

border exchanges in electricity

plan), including the modelling of the integrated network, scenario development, a European generation adequacy outlook and an assessment of the resilience of the system; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

12(1) publish a regional investment plan; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) TSO's - - - - x - - x x - - - -

Regulation 715/2009


8

Adopt a non-binding Community-wide ten-year network development plan, (Community-wide network development plan), including the modelling of the integrated network, scenario development, a European generation adequacy outlook and an assessment of the resilience of the system; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan)

ENTSOG - x - - x - - x x - - x -

12(1) publish a regional investment plan; separate (reflection of relevant parts in national plan) TSO's - - - - x - - x x - - - -




22 Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources MS x x - x - - - x x - x x -

4 + Annex

VI National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) MS x - - x x - - x x - x x -

17(7) + 23(3) Progress report EC x x - x - - - x x - x x -

24 Making relevant information public on the transparency platform EC - - - x x - - x x - x x -

19(5) Report on typical and default values of biofuels and bioliquids emissions EC - - - x - - x - - - x - -

23(10) report reviewing the application of this Directive EC - x - - - - - x x - x x - Energy efficiency contributing to moderation of demand



3(3) Enforcement activities and level of compliance MS x x - - - - - - - x - - - 3(4) Synthetic report of MS 4 years reporting EC x - - - - - - - - x - - -



10.2 List of existing measures and instruments, including financial MS x x - x - - - - - x x - -

9.1 Planning requirement on minimum energy performance requirements MS x x - x - - - - - x x - -

9.5 Report on progress of MS in increasing the number of nearly zero energy buildings EC - x - x - - - - - x x - -

5,2 Report all input data and assumptions used for cost-optimal MS x x - - - - - - - x x - -


205




Responsible entity

Compliance

Progress checking

Public confidence

Knowledge sharing

Intelligence/Market

transparency


Other

Security of supply

The Energy Market

Efficiency

Decarbonisation

R&D

No obvious fit to

any Energy Union

Dimensions

calculations and their results

5,4 Report progress of the Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements EC x x - - - - - - - x x - -



14(1), 24,

Annex XIII

Potential of cogeneration and district heating and cooling MS - - - x - - - - - x x x -

3, 24, Annex

XIV NEEAPs MS x - - x - - - - - x x x -

4 Long-term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock MS x - - x - - - - - x x - -

7, 24, Annex

XIV Progress report MS x x - - - - - - - x x x -

24(3) Evaluation of annual reports and NEEAPs EC x x - x - - - - - x x x -

24(5) Monitoring on implementation and on exemptions of Article 14 EC x - - x - - - - - x x - -

24(10) Review on the implementation of Article 19(1) EC x x - - - - - - - x x - -

24 (6) statistics on national electricity and heat production from high and low efficiency cogeneration MS - - - x - - - - - x x - -




25(1), Annex

IX point 3

Annual report on oil and gas installations and their safety MS x x x x x x - x - - - - -

25(3) Annual report based on the information reported by MS to the EC EC x x x x x - - x - - - - -

40 Assessment of experience in implementing the Directive EC x x - - - - - x x - - - -



6 1.Annual summary copy of the stock register MS x - - - - - - x - - - - - 12 3. Monthly statistical summaries of emergency stocks MS x - - - - - - x - - - - - 13 4. Monthly statistical summaries of specific stocks MS x - - - - - - x - - - - - 14 5. Monthly statistical summaries of commercial stocks MS x - - - - - - x - - - - -

9 (4) and 9 (5)

9(4): A notice specifying the level of specific stocks that it has undertaken to maintain and the duration of such undertaking which shall be at least 1 year. If a MS does not

MS x - - - - - - x - - - - -


206




Responsible entity

Compliance

Progress checking

Public confidence

Knowledge sharing

Intelligence/Market

transparency


Other

Security of supply

The Energy Market

Efficiency

Decarbonisation

R&D

No obvious fit to

any Energy Union

Dimensions

maintain specific stocks, it shall (9(5)) draw up an annual report analysing the measures taken by its national authorities to ensure and verify the availability and physical accessibility of its emergency stocks as referred to in Article 5 and shall document in the same report arrangements made to allow the Member State to control the use of these stocks in case of oil supply disruptions.



2, 7 Report at regular intervals on the conditions under which the oil imports or deliveries have taken place MS - - - - - x - x x - - - -

8 COM to analyse information and communicate it to MS EC - - - - x - - x x - - - -

Regulation 994/2010


5 1. Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans MS x - - - x - - x - - - - - 9 2. Risk assessment MS x - - - x - - x - - - - -

14 Report on the security of gas supply to be included in annual reporting in Directive 2009/73/EC EC - x - - - x - x - - - - -

Nuclear Energy Council Decision 2008/114/Euratom

Statutes for the Euratom treaty 3 Report on the activities of the Agency in the previous year

and a work programme for the next year EC - - x - x - - x - - - - -



16(1c)

Inform the Commission and the Advisory Committee on a yearly basis on shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries that, in the opinion of the competent authorities of the MS of origin, meet the exports requirements

MS - - - x - - - - - - - - x

20(1) Report on implementation of the directive MS x - - - - - - - - - - - x

20(2) Summary report on the implementation of the Directive with particular attention for art. 4 EC x - - - - x - - - - - - x

Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom, as amended by Council Directive


8e Self-assessment and international peer review MS - - - x - - - - - - - - x 8e Topical peer review MS - - - x - - - - - - - - x

9(1) Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive MS x - - - - - - - - - - - x

9(2) Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive EC x - - - - - - - - - - - x


207




Responsible entity

Compliance

Progress checking

Public confidence

Knowledge sharing

Intelligence/Market

transparency


Other

Security of supply

The Energy Market

Efficiency

Decarbonisation

R&D

No obvious fit to

any Energy Union

Dimensions

2014/87/Euratom



14(1) Report on implementation MS x - - - - - - - - - - - x

14(2) Report on progress (implementation) + summary report to EP, C and EESC + inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel and future prospects

EC x - - - - x - - - - - - x

14(3) Self-assessments and international peer reviews MS x - x x - - - - - - - - x

13 report on national programmes and any subsequent significant changes MS x - - - - - - - - - - - x



6 Annual work programme EC x - - - - - - - - - - - x

6 Progress report EC x x - - - - - - - - - - x

Euratom Treaty


40 To publish illustrative programmes indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets and all the types of investment required for their attainment.

EC - - x - x - - - x - - - -

Other



4.1(a) Transmit national statistics (annual) MS - - - - - x - x x x x x - 4.1(b) Transmit national statistics (monthly) MS - - - - - x - x x x x x - 4.1(c) Transmit national statistics (short-term monthly) MS - - - - - x - x x x x x -

5.5 The Commission (Eurostat) shall disseminate yearly energy statistics by 31 January of the second year following the reported period.

Eurostat - - - - - x - x x x x x -

6,4

Every five years, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the data transmitted as well as on any methodological changes that have been made.

MS - x x - - - - - - - - - x

Regulation (EU) 691/2011

on European environmental economic accounts

6 Reporting of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and economy-wide material flow accounts.

MS - - - x x x - - - x x - -


209

Annex B: List of reviewed sources List of literature

Becker, G. (1968) Crime and Punishment: an Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76 (2), pp. 169-217.

Cohen, M.A. (2000) Empirical Research on the Deterrent Effect of Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement. Environmental Law Reporter, 30, pp. 10245-52.

Council of the European Union (2015) Council conclusions on the governance system of the Energy Union. Available

at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/26-conclusions-energy-union-governance/

Defaa, W., & Philip, L. (2013) Report of working group 14 - Screen internal and external reporting requirements and propose way forward. Brussels.

European Commission (2010) Communication from the Commission: Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final.

European Commission (2014a) Report on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 994/2010 and its contribution to solidarity and preparedness for gas disruptions in

the EU, SWD(2014) 325.

European Commission (2014b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Energy Efficiency and its contribution to energy

security and the 2030 Framework for climate and energy policy, COM(2014) 520.

European Commission (2014c) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions: A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030, COM(2014) 15.

European Commission (2014d) Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment accompanying the document ‘A policy framework for climate and energy in the period

from 2020 up to 2030’, SWD(2014) 15 final.

European Commission (2015a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions: Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda, COM(2015) 215.

European Commission (2015b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions: Commission Work Programme 2016: No time for business as usual, COM(2015) 610.

European Commission (2015c) Fitness Check Roadmap on streamlining planning and reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis (REFIT)

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/26-conclusions-energy-union-governance/


210

European Commission (2015d) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the

Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy,

COM(2015) 080.

European Commission (2015e) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the

Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: State of the Energy Union 2015, COM(2015) 572.

European Commission (2015f) Commission Staff Working Document: Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook "REFIT

Scoreboard", SWD(2015) 110 final.

European Commission (2015g) Better Regulation Toolbox. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm

Hermelink, A. et al. (2013) Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: Definition of common principles under the EPBD. Ecofys.

Kampman, B. et al. (2015) Mid-term review of the Renewable Energy Directive: A study in the context of the REFIT programme. CE Delft.

OECD (2008) Environmental Compliance Assurance Systems: A cross-country analysis. Available

at http://www1.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2008)8/FINAL&docLanguage=En

US EPA (2007) Monitoring, Enforcement and Environmental Compliance. State of Science White Paper prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of

Research and Development (ORD) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm

http://www1.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2008)8/FINAL&docLanguage=En


211

Existing evaluation and impact assessment studies for specific pieces of legislation

Analysed legal bases

Analysed documents legal basis level

Analysed documents -

obligation level

Legal basis Name/description of the legal basis Short name

Impact

assessment

Evaluation

No. of

obligations

# of plans/reports/

evaluations available


Directive 94/22/EC Conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons N/A N/A 2 1

Directive 2005/89/EC Measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment Available N/A 2 1


Establishing the Connecting Europe Facility Available N/A 2 0


Guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure Available N/A 1 1

Decision 994/2012/EU Information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third countries in the field of energy Available N/A 1 1

Regulation No 256/2014 Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union Available N/A 2 1

Regulation (EC) 713/2009 Establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators N/A Available 3 2 Directive 2008/92/EC Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices

charged to industrial end-users N/A N/A 4 0

Directive 2009/72/EC Common rules for the internal market in electricity Available N/A 4 4 Directive 2009/73/EC Common rules for the internal market in natural gas Available N/A 4 4 Regulation No 663/2009, as amended by regulation 1233/2010

Establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy N/A Available 1 1

Regulation 714/2009 Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity Available N/A 2 2 Regulation 715/2009 Conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks Available N/A 2 2 Council Decision 1999/280 (and its implementing acts provided in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014)

"REMIT" Council Decision of 22 April 1999 regarding a Community procedure for information and consultation on crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of petroleum products N/A N/A 4 0

Regulation No 1227/2011 Wholesale energy market integrity and transparency N/A N/A 1 0 Decarbonising the economy


Renewable Energy Directive Available Available 6 3

Energy efficiency

Directive 2010/30/EU Energy Labelling Directive Available N/A 2 2 Directive 2010/31/EU Energy Performance of Buildings N/A Available 5 4


212

Analysed legal bases

Analysed documents legal basis level

Analysed documents -

obligation level

Legal basis Name/description of the legal basis Short name

Impact

assessment

Evaluation

No. of

obligations

# of plans/reports/

evaluations available

contributing to moderation of demand

Directive 2012/27/EU Energy Efficiency Directive

Available N/A 8 5


Directive 2009/119/EC Directive imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products Available N/A 5 3

Directive 2013/30/EU Offshore Directive - The safety of offshore oil and gas operations Available N/A 3 0 Regulation 994/2010 Concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply N/A Available 3 1 Regulation 2964/95/EC Regulation introducing registration for crude oil imports and deliveries in the

Community N/A N/A 2 2

Nuclear Energy


Statutes for the Euratom treaty N/A N/A 1 1


Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel N/A N/A 3 1



Available N/A 4 2


Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste Available N/A 4 1


Union support for the nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania Available N/A 2 2

Euratom Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community N/A N/A 1 0 Other REGULATION (EC) No

1099/2008 Regulation on Energy Statistics N/A N/A 5 0

Regulation (EU) 691/2011 on European environmental economic accounts N/A Available 1 1 Total 31 90 48


213

Annex C: List of stakeholders interviewed Name Organisation

European Commission & ACER 1 Nikolaos Sdrakas DG ENER, A4 2 Edith Hofer Sec Gen 3 András Hujber DG ENER, B2 4 Beatrice Coda DG ENER, B1 5 Blanca Andres-Ordax DG ENER, B4 6 Jean-Claude Schwartz DG ENER, B4 7 Zsolt Tasnadi DG ENER, A4 8 Maïlys Lange DG ENER, A1 9 Kristine Kozlova DG ENER, C1

10 José Antonio Hoyos Perez DG ENER, A4 11 Kurt Glaeser DG ENER, B1 12 Laurent Deleersnyder DG ENER, C3 13 Matti Supponen DG ENER, B2 14 Nina Gareis DG ENER, C3 15 Adam Romanowski DG ENER, B1 16 Borislava Batandjieva DG ENER, D2 17 Joseph-Michael Leblanc DG ENER, D2 18 Christophe Gence-Creux ACER 19 Marek Sturc Eurostat 20 Robert Schroeder ENTSOE

Member States 1 Birgitte Ostertag Danish Energy Agency (EPBD)

2 Bram Verckens Federal Public Service Economy, SMEs, Self-employed and Energy (FPS Economy) (ELD, Belgium)

3 Kostas Kanellopoulos Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE), Greece

4 David Krembel, Etienne Denieul Bureau des infrastructures gazières, Bureau de la sécurité d'approvisionnement

5 Indra Niedrite Latvian Ministry of Economy 6 Carmen Racero Spanish Ministry of Economy 7 Tana García Lastra Spanish stock holding agency CORES 8 Johannes Mayer E-Control (Austrian National Regulatory Authority) 9 Jochen Penker Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy 10 Jürgen Dengel, Vera Lücke Bundesnetzagentur (German National Regulatory Authority) 11 Dieter Kunhenn German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy 12 Waldemar Łagoda Ministry of Economy, Poland 13 Peter Bach, Signe Marie Enghave Danish Energy Agency 14 Miroslav Marias Ministry of Economy, Slovak Republic 15 Katarina Korytarova Ministry of Economy, Slovak Republic 16 Jean Lauverjat French Statistics Office 17 Hans-Paul Siderius Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO.nl)


215

Annex D: Interview questionnaires Questionnaire for Member States

Interview on the evaluation and impact assessment of planning and reporting obligations in the EU Energy acquis

The Scope of the interview:

1) To evaluate the current state of planning and reporting in energy legislations.

2) To assess the impact of possible three Scenarios/Policy Options (PO) of streamlining of planning

and reporting in energy legislations identified by the EC (see Annex to get overview of changes

suggested in each PO):

Analysis of the current system

1. To what extent have planning and reporting obligations contributed to improving your national

energy policymaking?

2. Is your organisation able to fulfil the current planning and reporting obligations in a correct and

timely manner? What are the consequences if this does not happen?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the planning and reporting obligations you are dealing with

could be simplified or streamlined?

4. How well are the current planning and reporting obligations adapted to developments in the fields

of digital technologies and processes?

5. To what extent are the current planning and reporting obligations in the EU energy acquis still

relevant to your needs in this area?

6. To what extent are the planning and reporting obligations for your sector of the EU energy

legislation coherent amongst themselves (e.g. scope, methodology, timing, periodicity, etc.)? Any

examples of lack of coherence? Are the differences justified or do you see a need for improving

coherence?

7. Are there national practices that integrate separate planning and reporting obligations and if so,

what kind of integrations occur?

8. Do the current planning and reporting obligations contribute to the improved alignment of national

energy systems and to Member States’ cooperation at the EU level?

Assessment of the possible three Scenarios/Policy options

1. In your view, how easy/difficult can it be to put each PO into practice from the perspective of your

MS, e.g. in terms of technical implementation, availability of resources, availability of human

resources, staff readiness/resistance?

2. What would be the potential obstacles and challenges?

3. To what extent would the soft guidance from the EC (P1 and 2) be followed up in streamlining the

reporting and planning?

4. To what extent the single electronic reporting system can simplify the reporting?

5. In your view, how much would the administrative burden/cost related to reporting increase or

decrease if each PO is implemented? Please give your best estimate of increase/decrease (in % ) in

following:


216

• Planning / Reporting cost for governmental officers (incl. administration time, subcontract,

ICT, equipment)

• Reporting cost for companies

6. How do the POs compare in the following:

a. monitoring the progress of reaching Energy Union objectives?

b. coherence between obligations, including: avoiding overlaps, data collection process,

timing/periodicity?

c. transparency of energy policies, investments, spending, safety, transparency of markets

d. improved alignment of national and EU energy systems

7. Which PO is more preferable, in your view and why?

8. What would be your recommendations with respect to improving the streamlining and integration

of the reporting and planning obligations?

Annex: Policy Options assessed in this study: PO objectives: streamlining of the existing planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the EU

energy and climate legislations

Main elements of policy options: Policy option 1

Soft guidance/no legislative change Policy option 2

Revision of Sectoral legislation Policy option 3

New Single legislative act




• Revision/amendment of existing legislation post 2020 and introducing changes in each towards streamlining of planning and reporting obligations (on an ongoing basis)




obligations in all (most) legislations post 2020

• New Single legislative act to streamline and integrate all(most) obligations in one report

• Commission provides a template for planning and progress reports as part of the legislative act

• Commission establishes a single and integrated electronic reporting system based on the template

Notes:

• Application of templates is not mandatory in PO1 and PO2

• Application of templates is mandatory in PO3

• Single electronic reporting system (PO1 and PO2) will allow submission of reports on legislative

obligations and energy/climate data by the Members States.

• PO2: long process, as each legislation has to be revisited one by one in order to introduce changes in

reporting and planning obligations with purpose of streamlining them across all legislations.

• PO3: fast process, as a new Single Legislative Act will eliminate the reporting and planning obligations

in all (or most of) legislations and impose one centralised reporting system.


217

Questionnaire for European Institutions

Interview on the evaluation and impact assessment of planning and reporting obligations in the EU Energy acquis

The Scope of the interview:

3) To evaluate the current state of planning and reporting in energy legislations.

4) To assess the impact of possible three Scenarios/Policy Options (PO) of streamlining of planning

and reporting in energy legislations identified by the EC (see Annex to get overview of changes

suggested in each PO):

Analysis of the current system

9. Have the planning and reporting obligations of the MSs helped you to improve policymaking?

10. Are you (your unit) able to fulfil the current planning and reporting obligations in a correct and

timely manner?

11. Do you have any suggestions on how the planning and reporting obligations you are dealing with

could be simplified or streamlined (versus the MS and versus the Eur. Parliament or Council)?

12. To what extent are your planning and reporting obligations coherent amongst themselves (e.g.

scope, methodology, timing, periodicity, etc.)?

13. Do the current planning and reporting obligations contribute to the improved alignment of national

energy systems and to Member States’ cooperation at the EU level?

Assessment of the possible three Scenarios/Policy options (the PO are explained below)

9. To what extent would the soft guidance (PO1 and PO2) be followed up in streamlining the reporting

and planning?

10. To what extent the single electronic reporting system can simplify the reporting?

11. In your view, how much would the administrative burden/cost related to reporting increase or

decrease if each PO is implemented? Could you give an estimate of increase/decrease (in % ):

• Planning / Reporting cost for governmental officers (incl. administration time, subcontract,

ICT, equipment)

• Reporting cost for companies

12. How do the POs compare in the following:

a. monitoring the progress of reaching Energy Union objectives?

b. coherence between obligations, including: avoiding overlaps, data collection process,

timing/periodicity?

c. transparency of energy policies, investments, spending, safety, transparency of markets

d. improved alignment of national and EU energy systems

13. Which PO is more preferable, in your view and why?


218

Annex: Policy Options assessed in this study:

PO objectives: streamlining of the existing planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the EU

energy and climate legislations

Main elements of policy options: Policy option 1

Soft guidance/no legislative change

Policy option 2 Revision of Sectoral legislation

Policy option 3 New Single legislative act




• Revision/amendment of existing legislation post 2020 and introducing changes in each towards streamlining of planning and reporting obligations (on an ongoing basis)




obligations in all (most) legislations post 2020

• New Single legislative act to streamline and integrate all(most) obligations in one report

• Commission provides a template for planning and progress reports as part of the legislative act

• Commission establishes a single and integrated electronic reporting system based on the template

Notes:

• Application of templates is not mandatory in PO1 and PO2

• Application of templates is mandatory in PO3

• Single electronic reporting system (PO1 and PO2) will allow submission of reports on legislative

obligations and energy/climate data by the Members States.

• PO2: long process, as each legislation has to be revisited one by one in order to introduce changes in

reporting and planning obligations with purpose of streamlining them across all legislations.

• PO3: fast process, as a new Single Legislative Act will eliminate the reporting and planning obligations

in all (or most of) legislations and impose one centralised reporting system.


219

Annex E: Stakeholder interviews Preparation

The aim of the interviews was to collect information and evidence on the evaluation questions and in

particular on the impact assessment questions, as the latter were not included in the survey. These

interviews were also an important source of detailed information to fill the gaps and test some

preliminary findings, namely the three future options.

We planned to conduct 30-40 interviews with the following stakeholders:

• Member State officials – national energy agencies, ministries, statistical offices;

• Commission officials – different units of DG Energy, Secretariat General, Eurostat

• EU agencies such as ACER

• The European Environmental Agency.

To carry out the interviews we prepared an internal interview guide and tailored questionnaires to the

different stakeholder groups. These were agreed upon by the client. The questionnaires consisted of

two main parts, i.e. questions related to the evaluation and questions related to the impact

assessment. An annex explaining briefly the three future policy options was included in the

questionnaire and distributed in advance to the interviewees. The questionnaires can be found in Annex

E. The questionnaires were tested on a couple of pilot interviews.

Data collection

Stakeholders for the interviews were carefully selected in order to ensure representativeness of the

different thematic areas within DG Energy as well as geographical balance. For the MS interviews, 12

MS were selected for being included in the interviews. This selection was aligned with the MS selected

for analysis in a parallel DG CLIMA study. The aim was to interview two stakeholders per MS, including

national energy agencies and energy attaches. Unfortunately, we were not able to secure interviews

with energy attaches.

For the Commission interviews and related agencies, different units were consulted.

To date we have carried out interviews with 19 Commission officials and agencies and 17 MS officials.

The list of stakeholders interviewed to date can be found in Annex C.

The interviewees covered the following DG Energy units: A4, B1, B2, B4, C1, C3, D2

The interviewees covered the following MS: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,

Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain.

In addition we interviewed these stakeholders: Secretariat General, Eurostat and ACER.

The following sectors were covered:

- Energy efficiency

- Renewable energy

- Integrated energy markets


220

- Security of supply

- Energy networks

- Nuclear energy

The next sections are based purely on the opinions of the stakeholders interviewed. The sections do not

include the opinions of the consultants.

Analysis of responses from the Member States

Analysis of existing obligations, input relevant for the evaluation

Planning and reporting obligations provide several benefits for the MS and the Commission

The current reporting and planning system has its positives and negatives. On the positive side, having

common targets and making sure all MSs are on track with implementing EU energy legislation has been

explicitly mentioned as positive by some interviewees, specifically related to the energy efficiency and

energy infrastructure sectors. They view the reporting obligations as justified and necessary, as a good

way to keep MSs on track and monitor implementation and effectiveness of the legislation, and as such

to ensure a level playing field in the EU. In addition, seeing how other MSs are doing could help push

forward or benchmark their own implementation. It is considered a good exercise, even though

preparing some of the plans and obligations is very time consuming. These obligations support national

energy policy making in the MS.

Obligations on future planning are seen as particularly useful in developing new strategies and moving

the focus onto new topics. For example, one expert mentioned the public consultations on capacity

mechanisms triggered by the EU. These were rather difficult to carry out, but were very useful for the

government. Other examples given were the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans, the Renewable

Energy Action Plans, the Emergency and Preventive Action Plans and Risk Assessment Plans. All of these

plans contributed to national energy policy making by integrating all the relevant issues into one plan.

The main drawback of the obligations is the relatively high administrative burden

On the negative side, most MSs take the view that fulfilling these obligations, particularly the reporting

ones, is very administratively burdensome. The perception of burden appears to depend on whether the

MS outsources the preparation of some of the plans/ reports to external consultancies or whether they

do it themselves. It also depends on whether the data gathered at a national level matches the level of

detail or classification required by the EC. If it matches, the administrative burden of reporting is lower

as the data is readily available. However, if the MS needs to retrieve data at another level of detail or

classification than what is normally collected at national level, then the administrative burden of doing

so is very high. Data used in national reporting is often different from that required by EU reporting,

with the former being based on data from the national statistical agencies and the EU reporting, being

based on EUROSTAT data requirements. Many stakeholders would welcome an improvement in the

harmonisation of these data sources.

In addition, stakeholders report that if the EC communicated the kind of data it will require well in

advance, this could be accommodated at the national level. These aspects and their efficiency could be

improved. For some pieces of legislation, there was felt to be double reporting, e.g. for the ELD and

the Regulation 765/2008 on Market Surveillance. There were also more challenges described in


221

collecting data for reporting if different agencies, ministries, divisions or companies are involved, for

example this is the case for the Ten Year Network Development Plans (TYNDP). As a concrete example,

another interviewee indicated that based on the Guidelines on capacity allocation and congestion

management100 ACER can request data from ENTSO-E, which may lead to inconsistencies with analyses

based on national data.

In general, the MSs can fulfil all the obligations of the Commission in a correct and timely manner,

though sometimes with small delays. However, they are seen by many interviewees as very time-

consuming and can interfere with staff’s other job obligations. Reporting can be also delayed in

particular when consolidated data from Eurostat are to be used as a basis, which are sometimes

delayed (e.g. the Renewable Energy Directive). Another example where difficulties in submitting on

time were reported are the Emergency and Preventive Action Plans and Risk Assessment Plans under

the security of supply directives. These plans require a lot of qualitative input from the MS and a

substantial additional effort on their behalf. To date, some MS have managed to comply with the EC

deadlines, while others have occasionally missed deadlines due to the small number of staff that can be

allocated to this task.

The level of detail required by the current reporting system is extremely high, while the use of the

reports by the Commission is not always clear

The current system requires huge amount of detailed data, resulting in reports of up to hundreds of

pages long. If this is multiplied by 28 MS, the quantity of information to be used by the Commission is

very large. Some information provided is also difficult to absorb (e.g. this is the case in some reports

related to the combined heat power obligations according to one interviewee). It is also not always

clear to the interviewees what the use/ purpose of the reported data is. If the purpose of the reported

data was clear, then the MS would see more benefits from the reporting (e.g. sector data reporting,

product group reporting, etc.).

The annual progress reports where the MSs have to report in a lot of (statistical) detail are seen as

particularly burdensome and are seen as an area where streamlining has the highest potential. Many of

the examples where overlaps exist concern information reported to, and provided by, Eurostat.

The current planning and reporting system does not generally support integration, the job is

scattered and done by different entities, but in some cases the reporting requirements have proved

to be successful in improving integration

In general, current national practices do not integrate separate planning and reporting obligations as

they are covered by the different directives and different topics and reporting obligations, and as such

in many countries by different ministries. Hence, gaining synergies from combining content is difficult.

Some MSs indicated that they have set up working groups to support cooperation on a national level.

For example, if different pieces of legislation require reporting of the same or similar data, the MS will

collect the data under the same administration programme.

MSs also differ on who does the reporting. In some MSs, all energy directives are under the same

ministry or agency, however, in other MSs they are spread across different ministries, even for the same

legislation. Where there is splitting of this nature it will make streamlining more difficult to coordinate.

100 Commission Reg. 2015/1222


222

Recommendations for streamlining

Some general aspects are included in various reporting obligations (e.g. regarding energy infrastructure

reporting but also others). This duplication could be avoided in an integrated energy and climate plan.

Reporting on energy statistics should be taken out and dealt with by Eurostat as they are already

dealing with it, and have an electronic system for it. It is useless and overly time consuming to ask for a

repeat of reporting on energy statistics through provisions in the energy legislation if the Commission

already has these numbers collected by Eurostat.

The indicators defined by the EU may be differently interpreted by the 28 Member States. Therefore,

the extent to which data are comparable and coherent between Member States is unclear. The

interviewee suggested developing the definitions and interpretations cooperatively in working groups.

This would also avoid definitions which are inappropriate for some national circumstances.

Another suggestion that was made was that where possible, the templates provided by the Commission

could be pre-filled with data from Eurostat to the extent possible, so the MS would only need to fill in

national data that are not available.

One interviewee stated that for some legislation, particularly the legislation related to the integrated

energy market and security of supply, several duplications exist as the same data is reported to

different agencies and institutions. This also affects companies, as they have to supply this data. This

can lead to data inconsistency as well as duplication of effort. This duplication could be addresses via

streamlining.

For some pieces of legislation, the interviewees reported no significant need for streamlining, for

example under the ELD.

Specific input related to energy efficiency legislation

The MS stakeholders we interviewed did not report experiencing problems fulfilling the obligations

under the energy efficiency legislation. However, in some cases, they did view the reporting obligations

as very time-consuming.

NEEAPs are seen as added value and relevant, as they provide informative material about the state of

play of energy efficiency in a country. The information prepared for these planning and reporting

obligations is also used in national energy policy making in some MSs, hence the added value is clear.

However, some other MSs think that these obligations do not significantly influence the national energy

policymaking as such reports would be produced by their country anyway, just under a different name,

and/ or the country already had similar provisions implemented before the EC obligations entered into

force. The same opinion was given for data gathering under the Energy Labelling Directive, where data

would be gathered (at least by some MS) even without an EC reporting obligation. One interviewee

suggested that this very much depends on the country and its government. If the government is very

progressive, the plans and reports would probably be set up even without EU intervention. If the

opposite is the case, the EU legislations is an important driver for this.


223

The annual progress reports are not seen as value added by some MS as they take a lot of time and a lot

of the energy related data is already supplied to (and available from) Eurostat so it is questionable why

MSs have to report on it again. Some parts of it, in particularly the statistics, could be automated to

save time.

Specific input related to energy infrastructure legislation

One interviewee highlighted the fact that there are challenges in collecting data for reporting from

different agencies, ministries, divisions or companies; an example of this is that information for the Ten

Year Network Development Plans (TYNDP) may require input data from Transmission System Operators

(TSOs), the regulatory authority and the statistical agency. In addition, the more details are required

the more difficult it is to gather adequate data as the responsible divisions might not have access to

such data and therefore need to contact or cooperate with other stakeholders. In some cases, the

obligations are detailed, and the benefit of the detailed information is not always obvious to the

obliged party.

On the other hand, there are examples where Member States report more than required by the

obligation, e.g. in terms of frequency with annual reporting provided where a report every two years is

required.

The harmonisation of data acquisition on national, EU and ACER level is seen as a challenge by one

interviewee. Standards (i.e. the exact definition of each data item) are in general set at national level,

not at EU or ACER level. Therefore, data reported to ACER often have gaps and inconsistencies, with

significant efforts required for filling gaps and resolving inconsistencies. Furthermore, national data can

be inconsistent, e.g. for energy retail markets, according to some interviewees, as they are based on

national standards, which are not harmonised. As one interviewee put it:

“If we need harmonised data for different EU Member States, we pay a consultant to develop them for

us!”

Specific input related to integrated energy market and security of supply

Regarding the reporting and monitoring requirements of directives we have classified under the

thematic area “Fully-integrated European Energy Market”, the process appears to be relatively well

established and efficient, possibly because the data compilation practices have been established for a

relatively long period of time. To illustrate this opinion a French interviewee gave the opinion that the

reporting carried out on energy market function has never been done for any directive per se, but

mainly to inform national market actors and consequently to improve national energy policy making.

The security of supply legislation, Emergency and Preventive Action Plans and Risk Assessment Plans,

are seen by the interviewees as providing a significant contribution to national energy policy-making.

For example, in one MS, the measures related to gas supply crisis are scattered across various pieces of

legislation. Therefore drafting these plans enabled national authorities to gather all the crisis-related

information, developments and measures into one document, which helped to establish better oversight

on the situation concerning the security of supply. Similarly, in another MS, gas supply security is

covered by new legislation. The EC reporting obligations helped them plan integrated approaches in this

area both within their country, as well as with the neighbouring countries. Other MS authorities

consider that these EC reporting and planning obligations offer a new kind of view on the topic of


224

security of supply. The guidelines, reported data and infrastructure standards developed by the EC are

therefore seen as an enrichment to national policy making.

Furthermore, an improved level of transparency for both the EC as a whole, and across MSs, is achieved

through publishing the national annual reports of gas and electricity markets (Dir 2009/72 and Dir

2009/73), which are accessible via the NRA, ACER and CEER (Council of European Energy Regulators)

websites.

With regards to the qualitative plans required under the directives on security of supply, the MS

stakeholders consulted are of the opinion that more detailed guidelines and support from the EC is

necessary to improve their efficiency. The initial reporting under these directives was in the form of

letters, which led to a diverse approach amongst MSs to meeting the planning obligations. Currently,

the EC provides broad headings for the plans with good practice examples on how best to approach

certain aspects of the plans being highlighted to MSs. However, stakeholders suggested that more

detailed templates, that outline the type of information to be included in reports, are necessary. As the

plans are complex, a more elaborated template would make national plans much more comparable and

hence would also help the EC to prepare the analytical overview of the overall EU level situation. The

annexes could also serve to provide important additional information that is not mandated by the

guidelines.

Regulation 994/2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply is currently under review,

concerns were raised by the MS interviewees that this review could result in a significant increase in

the administrative burden as the plans will have to be coordinated with neighbouring countries. It was

reported that a current problem with the plans is that they are only submitted in national languages,

which makes it difficult to view other country’s input. In the new proposal the EC is going to propose

that the documents are submitted in English. MSs expressed the hope that the EC will provide the

translation as national administrations do not have in-house translation services.

At the moment security of supply plans are uploaded on the EC internal system, which is known as

CIRCABC. MSs expressed their satisfaction with the system as it allows them to track the documents,

indicates when new plans have been uploaded and also gathers all accompanying documents on one

online platform. CIRCABC also enables users to see the non-confidential documentation from other

countries.

Legislation specific recommendations - examples: Energy efficiency and renewable energy: The annual progress reports under the EED [article 24 of the EED] could be made bi-annual or the

required statistics could be directly sourced from Eurostat to the extent possible.

Energy efficiency reporting according to Energy Efficiency Directive art. 24 (1) and according to

art. 24 (2) (National Energy Efficiency Action Plans – NEEAP) duplicates certain information. The planning obligation of article 10 of the EPBD could have been incorporated in the NEAAP

(EED). When combining the planning obligations there may be some changes in who does what,

but as a result, the report would significantly improve and provide a broader perspective. It is not clear what the report of article 10 under the EPBD is used for. The results of this reporting do not

appear to be utilised or publicised.

The Renewable Energy Directive has one reporting obligation (the progress report) which uses some information from the energy efficiency area. The duplication in this process could be


225

streamlined.

Some questions in the progress reports required by the Renewable Energy Directive should be

more precisely defined, e.g. No. 6 and 9, in order to enhance the comparability of answers between Member States.

Reporting on the obligations for the Energy Labelling Directive and the Regulation 765/2008 is

considered to overlap. This duplication could be streamlined in the Market Surveillance Regulation.

Energy infrastructure Both ACER and the national regulatory authorities develop monitoring reports on electricity and

gas markets. National regulators also report to ACER. However, ACER carries out its own analyses

of the data provided by national regulators, while the national regulators have carried out similar analyses themselves, so there is a certain degree of redundancy.

The electricity regulation includes a reporting obligation for ACER on electricity guidelines/codes

(congestion management, capacity allocation, etc.); a very similar obligation exists for ENTSO-E starting in 2017 for reporting to ACER. However, it is unclear from whom ENTSO-E will acquire the

necessary data (regulators, TSOs etc.). This represents a potential redundancy because of double

reporting. Reg. 714/2009 on cross-border exchanges in electricity, and Reg. 715/2009 on conditions for

access to the natural gas transmission networks include the obligation to report the Ten Year

Network Development Plan (TYNDP) to ACER. This is partly redundant because of overlap with the Projects of Common Interest (PCI) reporting. In addition to this, PCI are legally binding, while the

TYNDP is non-binding, and represents a collection of national projects rather than a harmonised

planning. Therefore, according to interviewees, the PCI reporting is of high relevance, while the TYNDP reporting is less so.

An example of a problem with reporting requirements, according to one interviewee, is Art. 37 of

the Electricity Directive where reporting requirements are defined in detail, while in practice, companies do not record such data

Integrated energy markets and security of supply There is duplication in data requests, for example, the data on road oil consumption is requested

in at least four different questionnaires: 1) monthly and annual oil statistics; 2) oil bulletin; 3)

Fuel Quality Monitoring (information require in the FQD Directive) and; 4) UNFCCC inventory reporting. Some streamlining here would be beneficial.

One MS NRA noted that they have to submit the same or similar data to the EC, ACER and CEER as

each one runs their own separate database. Furthermore, a concern was raised over possible duplications in the reporting prepared by different stakeholders, including the NRA, ministries,

national statistics office. Reporting inefficiencies due to overlaps are also present for electricity

and gas companies who supply the same data twice or more times for different reports and different stakeholders. This situation not only multiplies the efforts of both industry and the

national administration, but also increases the likelihood of generating inconsistent data because

data taken at very different times may lead to variations in the final figures. A concrete recommendation that was made with respect to the directives concerning security of

supply was to include EC guidelines and suggestions on cross-border decision-making mechanisms

that will have to be applied in the future to coordinate the elaboration of national Emergency and Preventive Action Plans.

Analysis of information related to the Impact Assessment


226

Preferable policy option

All stakeholders interviewed agree that more simplification/ reduction of administrative burden would

be welcome.

There were 17 MS interviews conducted, out of which 4 prefer PO1, 5 prefer PO2, 5 prefer PO3 and 7

are undecided. There were three answers where the interviewee(s) was indifferent between the two

options (marked both as preferred) – 1 respondent prefers a combination of PO1 and PO3, one

respondent prefers PO1 or PO2, and one doubts between PO2 and PO3. It is important to nuance the

interpretation of these numbers, as respondents who chose PO3 did not do so unreservedly but subject

to some caveats, some who chose PO2 acknowledged the usefulness of some PO3 elements, and some

stated that PO3 is more desirable but PO2 is more feasible. There were some respondents who were

undecided or chose 2 options, but clearly rejected PO3. Hence, what can be implied from this small

sample is that most of the interviewees acknowledge that some type of legislative action is preferable

in order to see changes.

Some observations made by the stakeholders on the three policy options include:

PO1 is not seen as a good option by the majority of stakeholders interviewed, as revision is already in

process and it is difficult to see how simplification and integration can be done without a legislative

change. It does not seem to bring about any significant changes to the status quo. Nevertheless, non-

mandatory templates and guidelines in PO1 are welcomed by several interviewees indicating that they

would help facilitate reporting and would thus be expected to be widely applied.

PO2 is preferred by some respondents as it is a legislative action (which is needed) and has a voluntary

template. Some respondents chose this option primarily because they do not want a mandatory

template, and/ or because they believe that having the obligations in sectoral legislation is more

appropriate, and as such a new single act would not bring much value added.

An important share of interviewees were open to, and preferred, PO3. They expressed the view that

Policy Option 3 offers the most potential to make reporting clear as it would allow the gathering of all

necessary information in one place. These interviewees hint at the fact that significant streamlining

will lead to reduced efforts and that limitations of the freedom of form and partly content can be

accepted. However, flexibility and the possibility to adapt to changing boundary conditions and needs

must be ensured in both reporting templates and in any electronic reporting platform. One Member

State mentioned by an interviewee has an integrated energy concept at national level. PO3 with an

integrated energy and climate concept would therefore not be a new situation, and would be welcome.

The fact that in PO3 changes in the planning/reporting obligations would only take place once, while in

PO2 the changes are spread over a period of several years, are seen as a point in favour of PO3.

Another point seen as positive for PO3 was that it includes mandatory requirements/ unified templates,

which allow for improved ease of comparison of planning/reporting between Member States.

However, there is a danger that with one single report the data breakdown may not suit all purposes.

Aggregated data could be drawn together but it may not include all necessary criteria for each

indicator. In other words, while PO3 would be more desirable, PO2 seems more feasible to some MS. A

shorter implementation time, as well as a more comprehensive approach covering all legislations was

an argument in favour of PO3 for some representatives. At the same time, they pointed out that the


227

initial cost of the changes (e.g. efforts to analyse and design a new reporting system for the EC, a

switch to new ICT infrastructure for MSs) could be substantial.

PO3 was not preferred by several of the stakeholders interviewed, because given the available

information, they felt that the feasibility of implementing this options was questionable. The main

concerns about this option were that since the obligations are already defined in sectoral legislation,

the added value of having them in yet another legislative act is doubtful. If there is no clear cut

responsibility as to who does the reporting, as might be the case when a single legislative act is

adopted, the reporting might be done by someone who does not know the subject. If the obligations are

to remain precise and clear, they should be kept in the directives.

Assessment of the feasibility of implementing the three policy options

When reviewing the answers to the questions on the feasibility of implementing the three policy

options, it should be noted that interviewees’ answers are based on a limited knowledge of how the

policy options will actually look. For some interviewees it was difficult to imagine how they would be

implemented, and hence it was difficult for them to assess the three policy options without knowing

more details. However, the interviewees agree that putting the three options into practice is

manageable, although the difficulties would increase from PO1 over PO2 to PO3. In principle, some

interviewees mentioned that they would do as they are told.

The three policy options and the views of the stakeholders interviewed are summarised in the following

paragraphs.

PO1 seems to be the easiest to implement as no legislative change is needed but the main drawback of

this option is that there might be limited streamlining without a legislative change. This has been also

stressed by the interviewees, who mention that they do not see major changes through implementing

PO1 compared to the current situation. If there is no legislative change, and since the MSs have already

transposed the existing directives in their legislation, they will not change that because of a voluntary

recommendation by the EC. Even if the EC said that the MS do not have to fulfil some obligations, since

these obligations would remain in the legislation, the MS would probably not follow the

recommendation. Hence it is difficult to see how streamlining would be implemented on a voluntary

basis.

The views was that PO2 could be implemented without too many problems, as the obligations stay in

the sectoral legislation and the template would be voluntary. Some interviewees see the difficulties of

PO1 and PO2 as being of a rather similar and low level as in PO1 changes are limited, and changes in

PO2 are spread over several years. Only if the content of obligations changes significantly, would PO2

be seen as being significantly different from PO1. Others see PO2 and PO3 as rather similar in terms of

implementation.

Interviewees found it difficult to understand how PO3 could be implemented and to what extent the

current obligations (and which) would be included in this integrated national action plan as the current

level of detail in the different obligations is extremely high. If the content of the current obligations

does not change, some of the interviewees do not see what added value and simplification this

integration into a single report would bring. Currently, there are different people dealing with different


228

reporting obligations, and as such gathering all the information into one report would not necessarily

improve efficiency. A single report would require more internal coordination.

In addition, if the high current level of detail persists, simplification will be very difficult and if there

was to be a single report for several pieces of legislation it would result in a rather general report. For

example, the NEEAPs are a couple of hundreds of pages long, the renewable energy action plans are

also very long, etc.

The main impacts of having an integrated energy and climate plan, in any of the three policy options

would depend on the content of this plan. The fact that different people work on different reporting

obligations will probably not change, and the recommendation was not to change that as the

decentralised concept has proved to be successful. So in this respect there are not that many efficiency

gains to be had. This would depend on the content of the integrated plan. On the contrary, if additional

centralisation of inputs was required, this would increase the administrative burden for the MSs.

Administrative burden would be also increased if the MS already has an electronic system, and a switch

was necessary.

Main challenges with respect to the implementation of the three scenarios

Interviewees see different potential obstacles and challenges in implementing the different Policy

Options. Different national approaches to organising the planning and reporting obligations may pose

different challenges. While a national coordination platform for reporting in some Member States may

make the implementation of PO3 easier for those Member States, a decentralised approach in other

Member States without centralised coordination may make implementation more difficult. In general,

some resistance against a new reporting methodology is to be expected.

Of the proposed new systems PO2 and PO3 are likely have the most implications for their administration

and create an administrative burden associated with setting up the system, so the system should be

good in order to create efficiency gains once it is in place. For example, some MSs are already not very

enthusiastic about the suggested integrated energy and climate plan, as it will require substantial

changes and more cooperation on the national level, but they will do it.

According to one interviewee, EU reporting obligations are a subset of national reporting obligations

and therefore, streamlining EU reporting obligations would have little effect on the level of effort

required. This is true for most of the “older” EU Member States, while in general the “new accession”

States have taken EU reporting obligations as a guideline to building up national reporting;

consequently, streamlining may have more effects in these Member States, according to this expert’s

judgment. According to another interviewee, the amount of planning and reporting obligations coming

from the national and from the European level are comparable. This suggests that the effects of

implementing new policy options with more streamlining might have an unequal distributional effect,

affecting some MSs more than others.

Another challenge that some interviewees see is the integrated report itself. There seems to be a

trade-off between its size (given the level of detail currently required) and specificity (how to handle

all those different obligations and to which detail). It is extremely important that the Commission

clearly defines the level of detail it requires in such a report in order to avoid receiving lengthy


229

documents that are impossible to handle. On the other hand, how to simplify all the required

information is a challenge as the range of information is currently extremely broad.

Data gathering and reporting challenges were also mentioned by some interviewees who are in charge

of reporting such data. The greatest concern was possible requests for new types of data, which their

systems do not yet support. If new types of data were requested, solutions could only be found over a

longer time-span. While it was acknowledged that binding changes would be good for most effective

streamlining, a problem could arise in devising comprehensive forms and templates that would

accommodate all the necessary data requirements. Also, if there was just one single report to fill, this

will have to be compiled by different organisations that are in charge of gathering data at national

level. The danger is that if all organisations responsible for data gathering have to fill in the template

at the same time, this would become a cumbersome process and would require extensive coordination

efforts from MS. Another possible challenge may appear, if the scope of reported data and information

also increases when it is put in the single reporting system. This would clearly increase the effort for

data collection.

Views on the electronic reporting system

In general, interviewees are open to exploring the advantages and opportunities of electronic reporting.

However, they caution that it is difficult to assess the consequences of electronic reporting without

more detailed information. Some interviewees agreed that in the longer-term one single system and

one single data report could prove more efficient as it would enable feeding data with unified criteria.

Some MSs were highly positive about the idea of a new single electronic system stating that usually such

systems are user friendly and it does not take too much time to understand how to use it.

Some interviewees agree that obligations should be adapted or developed from scratch to be suitable

for electronic reporting. As an example, ACER uses and continuously extends an electronic reporting

platform for data reporting by national regulators. Another example given was the electronic system

used by Eurostat. Eurostat has already developed an electronic system which seems to be functioning

well, so this could be taken as the basis to streamline reporting on statistics. For security of supply

legislation, a best practice example was mentioned as being the EC internal system CIRCABC as it

allows tracking of documents, indicates when new plans have been uploaded and also gathers all

accompanying documents on one online platform.

Other interviewees were more hesitant about introducing a new electronic system. In particular

countries with larger administrations were more negative as it would pose a new administrative burden

in terms of training and adaptation time. Another obstacle for a single system could be national data

protection rules. For instance, in one MS sensitive data such as investments cannot be publically

reported on websites or databases, for which the level of data protection is uncertain.

Interviewees identified a fundamental difference between data reporting and providing assessment

reports. For data reporting IT-based systems are well-suited, and are already partly used at national

level for data acquisition, e.g. from grid operators, and for national or EU reporting. Extensive efforts

are required for filling gaps and resolving inconsistencies in IT systems. The efforts involved strongly

depend on national circumstances, e.g. according to the number and size of grid operators, varying

from one grid operator in some Member States, to very many, (including some small, grid operators in


230

other Member States. Data acquisition should remain a national competence as national circumstances

vary widely across EU, according to one interviewee.

Interviewees strongly suggested that electronic reporting platforms need to be well-adapted to the

different planning or reporting obligations, and should offer flexible solutions depending on whether

data are reported, or assessment reports. For obligations, which require a lot of text (e.g. plans,

measures, etc.), electronic reporting might be a problem as it would limit the space available for a MS

to provide their input.

Electronic platforms are not expected to reduce efforts as the main effort is in the intelligent

assessment, not in the submission, which is electronic already. However, a flexible reporting platform

could be interesting if it structures the reporting requirement (in the sense of a template) and the

report submission would be done by sections, so that each assessment step would be submitted

separately and could be easily compared between the 28 EU Member States.

One interviewee suggested that future digital technologies should include additional assistance services

(e.g. through a dedicated contact person) in case some obligations / indicators / questions are not

clear to the national authorities. This would help facilitate the preparation of reporting and planning.

It was mentioned that changes to the electronic platform would be important, if a system is provided

that would all to consult the submitted data by different persons and organisations that share and use

the same information. This is not possible in current reporting mechanism. Also the electronic platform

could be useful if it was designed in such a way to allow a reduction in the duplication of data entry.

Some stakeholders indicated that they would keep on using their own internal electronic system in

addition to the Commission one. The system would increase the administrative burden if the new

electronic system is not compatible with their old systems and they had to manually copy data into the

new system.

The electronic system will also need to allow inputs to be shared amongst more people and/ or allow

automatic download of some data from Eurostat. One interviewee suggested that an electronic

reporting platform should not be a unidirectional machine, but needed to allow for feedback and

iterations. Another interviewee emphasised that an electronic reporting platform would have to allow

the decentralised structure of reporting in the Member State to be retained, i.e. allow for different

entities and units to submit different reports or analyses.

For EED, one interviewee mentioned that they are using the standard system and notification database,

and Microsoft tools for reporting. They receive excel sheets, which then need to be uploaded to the EC

system. Obligations which require a lot of text, e.g. the NEEAPs, parts of the annual progress reports,

etc. are not 100% suitable for electronic reporting as the amount of text needed to explain everything

is very large. It is not clear how well an electronic system could handle this.

Regarding security of supply, a number of MS interviewees stated that a common electronic platform

where authorised people can upload documents is the optimal system for exchanging the planning

documents. Although there could be obstacles to such a system. One interviewee from a national

administration pointed out that the monitoring of reporting on natural gas markets (Reg. 347/2013) is


231

done via a portal that is used by many European countries. In the first year of using the portal there

was no binding legal framework; however, this year countries have had to sign a memorandum to

ensure data security on the portal. The national authorities of the MS in question were not able to sign

this memorandum as it was not recognised by their national law. This example illustrates the possible

difficulties of fitting a single electronic system to all EU countries and accommodating the variety of

legal and administrative requirements that exist at national level.

Views on the voluntary vs. mandatory template

A template, whether voluntary or mandatory, for an integrated national energy and climate plan is seen

as positive by the majority of interviewees. A particular positive is that it would provide a better

overview for the MSs than if the information was scattered across different reports. According to one

interviewee, this is particularly important if the responsibility for energy obligations is scattered across

different ministries, as is the case in some countries. Additional positive impacts of such an integration

would be improved coherence between the different obligations (assuming some streamlining would

take place) and improved transparency.

In general, a voluntary template as in PO1 and PO2, is deemed useful and would most likely be used by

MSs, even if it was only required on a voluntary basis. According to some interviewees, MSs would

strongly welcome templates from the EC. It is important that any such template should be carefully

developed and should not be designed too rigidly as there are subjects that have peculiarities in each

country and templates should allow these details to be explained, in a free format. It was felt that

most MSs would use a voluntary template if it was provided. Interviewees see a trade-off between

mandatory and comparability, and voluntary and flexible. Comparability is also important, but if

everything is mandatory it might be too rigid and not be able to capture all the relevant information. In

this respect, mandatory changes could create more burden as it would also require control and

enforcement mechanisms for compliance. It was felt that for qualitative plans, retaining some

flexibility is necessary as there are always exceptions that reflect the specific nature of each Member

State and need to be addressed via discussion with EC. If the rules are binding, problems may arise due

to lack of space for mutual interaction. It was highlighted that the existing reporting obligations would

(it as assumed) remain binding in any case, so any additional reporting should allow flexibility on the

assumption that some elements would remain mandatory.

Interviewees stressed that EC guidelines enable a more accurate idea of the type and level of data that

needs to be provided. It also helps to build the structure of the reporting and agree on the level of

granularity as this is very often the subject of internal debates. Hence the existence of clear templates

decreases the cost of planning for MSs. Although if the template is not easily understandable, it

requires more time to fill it in.

One interviewees expressed a concern that soft guidance should only be used if the responsible parties

are able and willing to follow the suggestions, as there are no consequences for not fulfilling the

obligations in a proper manner.

Recommendations

The interviewees stressed the need for more cooperation and communication with the MSs to make the

new system work well for both parties.


232

They also pointed out that it is important to distinguish between the different types of data that are to

be reported. For statistical data, it is useful to have a template to ensure consistency among MS

reports. However, when reporting on issues such as the national indicative targets more flexibility is

needed to reflect the variation in national approaches.

One interviewee suggested developing an electronic reporting module, which could directly source

relevant energy data from the Eurostat database and present them in the correct format for reporting,

so that the MS do not have to do this themselves. This would considerably reduce the administrative

burden. The MS staff would still need to know how to interpret and use the information correctly, and

only add information related to national policy making. An example of this approach is the report: EU

energy policy data from 2007 where data from Eurostat were sourced to characterise the energy policy

of MSs.

Other recommendations put forward included suggestions on improving the clarity on the criteria that

are applied to quantitative data requirements so that there are no differences in the final results. It

would be most beneficial if data collector could upload the data, but the organisation receiving it can

apply the necessary criteria depending what they want to do with the data. Inefficiencies also arise

when the same information is requested, but in different units. For instance, one questionnaire asks for

data in tonnes but another one asks for the same data in m3, etc. If the data provider generates the

information with the necessary breakdown, then it should be the receiver that converts the information

into the necessary units. Hence coherence of reporting should improve if this conversion is built into

the online system.

Another recommendation is to provide national stakeholders with a clear picture on who is reporting

what across several national stakeholders in order to have a better idea for areas for possible

streamlining.

In addition, in order to avoid the situation where the single report with many obligations grouped

together becomes extremely large, it might be better to leave some specific reports separate, e.g.

action plans under the EED or under the RED. As these are separate reports on different topics, and

putting them together does not seem to make much sense. The single report could be of a more general

character, with the statistical data pulled out from Eurostat, and the MSs would complement it with

qualitative information at a reasonable level of detail.

Analysis of responses from the Commission and its agencies

General comments regarding the current reporting system

Most planning and reporting obligations are considered useful, while others do not have clear

added value

Most of the Commission respondents considered the planning and reporting obligations that are dealt

with by their unit as being relevant and useful. Members States’ reporting generally provides the

Commission with information that is not available from other sources and allows the Commission to

monitor implementation. There is also a strong recognition of the importance of reporting in evidence-

based policy-making on the part of ACER and Eurostat. Some of the obligations reviewed were


233

considered particularly useful, and the interviewees stressed the need to maintain them. In some cases,

the reports are relevant not only to the Commission, but also to a range of other stakeholders.

On the other hand, several Commission respondents emphasised that many of the existing obligations

do not lead to useful outputs. Some believed that there is currently no formal mechanism in place for

removing or updating obsolete requirements (although this could in fact be achieved via REFIT).

Eurostat and ACER also mentioned this issue. Moreover, a number of overlapping obligations exist, with

Member States reporting the same information to multiple entities or under different legal bases, or

different organisations producing separate reports on the same topic. The REFIT Fitness Check seeks to

address this issue. A related issue is that obligations established through legislation cannot always be

amended rapidly enough to satisfy the evolving information needs of policy-makers (although Annexes

to legislation could possibly be updated faster through ‘comitology’ procedures).

Example of an obligation with little added value: The obligation of Member states to report on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the EU under Directive 256/2014 overlaps with obligations towards ENTSO-E and

ENTSOG, and countries reporting to these organisations are exempted from reporting to the

Commission. Therefore, the five biggest energy countries are not included in the Commission’s report. Furthermore, the required data is also gathered through other institutions (such as

PLATTS), where Member States can easily obtain their data. This data is updated annually, so

generally provides more up to date than the reports produced under Directive 256/2014. Only the requirement to report information on generation is specific to Directive 256/2014.

Moreover, the projects listed in the report are not binding; companies could plan to invest in a

project and later decide not to go through with it. For these reasons, the report obtained through Directive 256/2014 is not used to a large extent.

Example of obligations with significant added value: The monthly reports produced under Regulation 2964/95/EC and Council Decision 1999/280

are not only used by the Commission, but also by external parties such as the European Central

Bank, petroleum companies, private entrepreneurs, employees of public administrations and business organisations such as Chambers of Commerce. The Weekly Oil Bulletin, an obligation

stemming from Council Decision 1999/280, is also of interest to consultants, researchers, press

officers and other stakeholders.

Fulfilment of the reporting obligations by Member States varies

The timeliness of submission of the reports by Member States varies and the Commission sometimes has

to remind Member States to deliver. In some cases, if the Commission is required to draw up a report

based on Member States’ submissions, it prepares the report based on the inputs received (i.e. omitting

certain Member States). For example, the report stemming from Directive 256/2014, Article 10 for 2015

is currently being finalized by the Commission, based on inputs from only 21 Member States (after

sending five reminders to Member States). The Commission has already taken some measures to

circumvent the issue of untimely inputs; for example, the Commission reports under Regulation

2964/95/EC and Council Decision 1999/280 are published on a yearly basis, although the data is

collected from Member States on a monthly basis.


234

In some cases, Member States are exempted from reporting because they already report similar data to

a different institution (e.g. regarding the obligations established by Directive 256/2014). This can

however result in an incomplete dataset for the Commission report and possibly less valuable analyses.

The timing of reporting obligations is not always optimal

Some legislative acts contain different obligations with the same reporting frequency, but different

timelines. In such cases, the interviewees noted it would be preferable to harmonise the submission

deadlines.

As regards the Commission’s obligations, one respondent noted that evaluations by the Commission are

sometimes required too early in the implementation process, when there is little evidence from the

legislation’s application to report on.

Reporting templates have generally proven useful

For some obligations, legally binding templates are used to collect the data. These templates generally

work well, however, the data is sometimes still reported by Member States to the Commission in

different formats, such as an Excel or Word file, or even handwritten reports. The Commission must

then integrate the data in a general format. Electronic reporting systems are considered useful in order

to prevent such problems.

On the other hand, the lack of mandatory templates is not necessarily seen as an impediment to

accurate or timely reporting. For example, Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common rules for the

internal market in electricity specifies the topics Member States shall report on, but no template is

provided. This flexibility is seen as beneficial by the responsible official, as it allows for the reported

information to be tailored to evolving policy needs, whereas the process for amending a fixed template

would in most cases be too slow.

Administrative costs associated with the current reporting system

According to one interviewee, the level of detail required from the Member States’ (and the

Commission’s) reports is too high, resulting in a relatively high administrative burden on the staff

responsible for reporting. This is, in her view, one of the main bottlenecks of the current system.

Most of the Commission interviewees found it difficult to provide average estimates of the (in-house)

costs associated with reporting, since the time spent on such tasks varies throughout the year

depending on specific deadlines, on whether the report is produced by the Commission itself or

outsourced, on the quality of Member States’ submissions, etc. The staff costs can range from 6 person-

weeks every two years to as much as 3-4 FTE daily in-house plus additional help (amounting to more

than 10 FTE daily in some periods).

It is estimated that the reporting obligations of the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Efficiency

Directive and the Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings on average require 0.2 FTE, 1 FTE

and O.6 FTE Commission staff, respectively, throughout the year.

The analysis of Member States’ reports is sometimes contracted out by the Commission to external

parties and the costs of such service contracts vary depending on the specific tasks.


235

The Commission continue to make ongoing efforts to improve reporting

In a number of sectors, the Commission has already made efforts to improve the quality and timeliness

of reporting and/or to reduce administrative burden, some effective solutions have been put in place,

such as joint reporting templates covering multiple obligations. Two successful initiatives to streamline

reporting are shown in the box below.

Examples of internal streamlining initiatives

The Commission has already streamlined the reporting obligations contained in the Renewable

Energy Directive (2009/28/EC). A reporting template comprising information related to the

various reporting provisions was developed by the responsible unit in order to facilitate and

standardise (to the extent possible) Member States’ reporting. The report is compact

(approximately 10 pages) and easy to use by both Member States and the Commission. The

Commission’s template also provided the basis for Eurostat’s design of the electronic template

used by Member States to report renewable energy statistics. The Commission worked closely

with Eurostat to ensure the same data is reported to both institutions. The future aim is to

implement a single electronic submission, whereby Member States fill in one template

covering reporting obligations to both the Commission and Eurostat.

Regulation 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure requires

project promoters to report to ACER and to the competent authorities on the implementation

of projects of common interest (PCIs). ACER has to prepare a consolidated report for the

regional groups, while competent authorities have to report annually to the regional groups.

To simplify the work of project promoters and avoid duplication, DG Energy (Unit B1), ACER

and the competent authorities developed a structured online survey which contains questions

of interest to ACER, as well as questions of interest to the competent authorities. Thus,

project promoters only have to fill in one survey, on the basis of which both ACER and the

competent authorities can subsequently prepare their respective reports. The process for

agreeing on this common template was relatively rapid and straightforward. There is also a

Memorandum of Understanding stating that ACER and competent authorities share the data.

The survey is implemented through the Commission’s electronic platform ‘Your Voice in

Europe’.

In certain cases, the Commission has been pragmatic concerning Member States’ and its own reporting

obligations. For example, with the annual progress report on the internal market in electricity produced

by the Commission under Directive 2009/72/EC, the Commission produces a shorter report or even skips

a year if there is no policy-related need for such a report. Regarding Article 22(3) of Regulation

1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, the informal interpretation of DG Energy has

been that the provision does not concern the energy component of CEF and DG Energy has therefore not

required Member States to report on investments made in CEF Energy.

In some cases, the Commission has actively encouraged Member States to deliver on their reporting

obligations, for example through guidelines, training, awareness raising through various channels, and

concerted action.


236

In cases where the legislative act does not specify at length what a report should contain, the

Commission has developed a template or issued additional guidelines (e.g. Directive 2010/31/EU on the

Energy Performance of Buildings; Article 24(1) of the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU).

Eurostat demonstrated synergies with OECD/IEA and the UN in joint streamlining of their methodologies

for data reporting. In particular, the Annual questionnaire templates allow them to collect the major

data on Electricity&Heat, Natural Gas, Oil, Renewables&Wastes, Coal, and Nuclear energy.

Nevertheless, some Member State officials noted that there is scope for further improving the reporting

system, e.g. by making the procedure more user-friendly.

When the obligations of Member States to report to the Commission overlap with obligations towards

other organisations (such as ENTSO-E, ENTSOG or joint conventions), the Commission generally

encourages Member States to take advantage of reporting to these institutions and use some of the

information contained in these reports for their report to the Commission.

Recommendations for streamlining

Broadly speaking, the Commission interviewees agree that simplification and streamlining of reporting

obligations is desirable wherever this is feasible. One interviewee stressed the importance of tracking

how the information obtained through reporting is followed up. Obligations which are clearly not

leading to any useful outputs should, in his view, be abolished, or amended in such a way that they

become useful. It is important to scrutinise all the different pieces of legislation, identify overlaps in

reporting obligations, and eliminate the overlaps. If several actors are producing reports on the same

topic, any overlap in their obligations should be abolished, making the reporting unique.

Some officials also believed reporting requirements should be tailored to policy needs. Obligations

established in legislation and fixed templates cannot always be amended rapidly enough to satisfy the

evolving information needs of policy-makers. In this regard, one interviewee stressed that it is better to

work with ad-hoc studies and reports than to prescribe detailed reporting requirements in legislation.

There is also scope for streamlining some of the reporting deadlines. Some legislative acts contain

different obligations having the same reporting frequency, but different timelines. In such cases, it

would be preferable to harmonise the submission deadlines. This would, for example, enable the

Commission to simultaneously remind Member States to submit the different reports.

Respondents’ recommendations related to specific pieces of legislation are presented in the box below.

Legislation-specific comments and recommendations from the interviewees regarding the

existing obligations

Directive 2010/31/EU, Art. 5(2): The Directive requires Member States to report every 5

years on their calculations of cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance

requirements. This provision is of a technical nature. It is neither related to strategic

planning, nor used to analyse progress made by Member States. This reporting has worked

well so far and the best course of action in this case is to maintain the obligation as it

stands, and eventually clarify the guidance given to Member States. This type of obligation –

technical in nature and without implications for strategic planning or the Energy Union

objectives – should not be incorporated in a single streamlining act and report.


237

Directive 2009/119/EC: The obligation concerning Member States’ reporting of oil stocks

statistics is a very specific obligation that should remain in the Oil Stocks Directive itself.

Directive 2009/28/EC: The obligation for the Commission to report on the sustainability of

biofuels (Article 17.7) is redundant, as it no longer corresponds to the current trends

observed in the biofuels industry. The interviewee does not necessarily recommend repealing

the obligation, but it may need to be adapted (also in light of future legislation on biofuels

and biomass).

Directive 2010/31/EU, Art. 10: The obligation for Member States to report on the list of

other measures and financial instruments applied to promote the Directive’s objectives could

be repealed, as this is done by most Member States under the NEEAPs.

Under Regulation 1227/2011, both the Commission and ACER are responsible for drawing up

a report on progress in the internal energy market. ACER’s report is very comprehensive and

much better than what the Commission can provide; in the interviewee’s view, the

Commission’s obligation should in this case be eliminated or adapted.

The obligations that involve reporting of quantitative data to the Commission could be

transferred to Eurostat (e.g. obligations under Regulation 2964/95/EC and Council Decision

1999/280). This would allow the Commission to focus more on the analysis of data (instead

of its collection and publication), but would also imply that in some cases DG Energy would

no longer have access to some of the confidential data. So far, Eurostat has refused to take

over the obligations foreseen in Regulation 2964/95/EC and Council Decision 1999/280 and a

new request to Eurostat is currently under consideration.

There is a strong overlap between the reporting obligations under Transparency Regulation

543/2013 and REMIT Regulation 1227/2011 in terms of obtaining the data, which has an

impact on the collection of data by the market participants who have to publish the same

type of information twice but for different purposes, with different timelines and

granularity. Therefore, these two regulations should be aligned.

ACER faces persisting problems in accessing data, due to the lack of a mandate for data

collection from ENTSO. This is especially critical in producing flagship reports on monitoring

energy markets.

Analysis of information related to the Impact Assessment

The preferred Policy Option

Most of the DG Energy interviewees agreed that PO1 is not desirable, since some streamlining and

elimination of overlaps or redundant requirements is needed. According to one interviewee, some

streamlining may still occur under PO1, but it is questionable to what extent and by how many Member

States. ACER and Eurostat similarly recognise the need to better align and centralise data collection

(especially as regards quantitative reporting).

Five of the interviewees from DG Energy, together with Eurostat and the Secretariat General, expressed

a preference for PO3, subject to a few caveats. Three Commission interviewees and ACER considered

PO2 to be the best alternative, but mentioned the possibility of including certain elements of PO3, such

as introducing single reporting on a sectoral basis or making certain fields of the reporting template


238

mandatory. Three respondents believed PO1 would be the best course of action as regards the pieces of

legislation dealt with by their units. Four interviewees could not express a preference for a particular

option, but generally highlighted the difficulties associated with PO3, while another respondent

believed PO1 would not be desirable but could not assess whether PO2 or PO3 would be the best

alternative.

Table 0-1 Assessment of the three policy options: interview results Policy Option Respondents in favour PO1 3 PO2 4 PO3 7

Could not decide 5

The respondents in favour of PO3 also expressed a number of caveats, as follows:

• One interviewee considered that PO3 is preferable as long as it only concerns those reporting

and planning obligations that are relevant in terms of strategic planning and/or relate to the

objectives of the Energy Union. Requirements that are technical in nature and have no

implications for strategic planning should not fall under the scope of a single streamlining act

and single report.

• Several respondents believe it would not be feasible to have a single streamlining act and

report covering all energy-related sectors. However, there could be one reporting obligation

bringing together the requirements within each sector, which would also ensure that the

information provided to different units on the same topic is consistent.

• Several respondents stressed that a streamlined reporting act should not reduce the level of

detail required in terms of content. Similarly, a single template is desirable, provided that it is

detailed enough to satisfy each unit’s information needs.

• If there is only one report covering all (or most) obligations pertaining to different pieces of

legislation, then problems would arise if Member States are late in submitting the report. The

delay would affect all units, whereas at present delays concerning one report do not affect the

other submissions.

• Often, different services within Member States are responsible for different reporting

obligations. A single reporting system would require more coordination and/or an extra layer

of administration to collect several inputs within a Member State before making the

submission, which may increase the costs of reporting.

• Another caveat is that information may be available and needed at different times throughout

the year, so it would be problematic to set a deadline for the entire single report.

• One respondent believes an all-encompassing act would not be feasible, but there is scope to

regroup the obligations in terms of: 1) who reports and 2) what the reporting is about.

• An additional aspect to be considered in designing a single reporting system is the publicity of

the report. Certain parts of the report may need to be declared restricted (to certain units or

the public).

In terms of implementation challenges, one interviewee pointed out that there might be some

reluctance from Member States to implement PO2 or PO3, as the two policy options would drastically

change the processes they are used to. While some Member States may be opposed to the changes,

others will welcome the opportunity to improve their policy-making. Moreover, PO3 would require

another transposition by the Member States, which creates additional administrative burden.


239

Views on the voluntary vs. mandatory reporting template

It is questionable whether a voluntary template would be followed by the Member States. Therefore, a

mandatory template is preferred by some respondents. Indeed, the introduction of mandatory

templates has increased Member States’ compliance rate in the past. For example, in 2011 and 2013,

only 12, and 11 Member States respectively, reported under Article 3 and 5 of Directive 256/2014.

Following the introduction of a mandatory template in 2014, 21 Member States submitted reports in

2015.

On the other hand, some interviewees believe that only certain fields (in particular, those related to

basic, factual data) should be made mandatory, whereas others should remain voluntary. A related

issue is the flexibility of the template. Fixed templates are seen as difficult to amend when new

information needs arise. Therefore, it would be preferable to have a single, fixed template only for the

factual data that will be needed in the long term and a more flexible, ad-hoc part allowing the

Commission to decide, according to policy needs, which information should be reported.

Sector-specific comments

The policy officer responsible for the TEN-E Guidelines Regulations considers it would not be feasible to

bring the regulations’ reporting requirements into the single enabling act. The reporting obligations

should remain within the TEN-E package, although some improvements concerning processes could be

made.

The policy officers responsible for the nuclear energy directives emphasise that adopting a single

legislative act could be difficult due to the different character (and legal basis) of the nuclear

directives.

Concerning the Oil Stocks Directive, the interviewees were of the opinion that its reporting obligations

should be maintained as they are and not included in a streamlining act, particularly since it is too

early to evaluate how the obligations work in practice.

Views on the electronic reporting system

Most respondents agree that an electronic reporting system would be feasible and desirable, provided

that it contains separate sections or headings per area and that it is not too cumbersome to implement.

Several units already use different electronic platforms for reporting. For example, the electronic

system EMOS is currently used for reporting under Regulation 2964/95/EC and Council Decision

1999/280. The system is considered very user-friendly and its use is also being considered for

obligations stemming from other legislation.

However, the implementation of an electronic reporting system requires additional resources, which

may not always be available. (Eurostat, on the other hand, considers that the expanded electronic data

volumes expected under PO2 and PO3 would not require additional personnel.)

Eurostat is strongly in favour of using electronic reporting and considers that its current electronic

system could be used for this purpose.


241

Annex F: Survey questionnaire Survey of Member States 1. Country: select from drop down menu 2. Name of your organisation/division: _________________________________ 3. Your role in the organization: _________________________________ 4. Your name: ________________ 5. The pieces of legislation reported in the previous figure are listed below in the same order, with the reporting and planning obligations related to them. Please select the obligations you are responsible for (roll over the items below with your mouse to see the description of the corresponding obligations):

Energy efficiency Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive) - Art.3(3)(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.10.2(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.9.1 (Planning obligation) Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.5.2(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.14(1), 24, Annex XIII(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.3, 24, Annex XIV (Planning obligation) Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.4 (Planning obligation) Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.7, 24, Annex XIV (Reporting obligation) Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.24 (6)(Reporting obligation) Energy supply security Dir. 2013/30/EU(Offshore Oil and Gas Directive) - Art.25(1), Annex IX point 3(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.6(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.12(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.13(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.14(Reporting obligation) Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration) - Art.2, 7(Reporting obligation) Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - Art.5 (Planning obligation) Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - Art.9 (Planning obligation) Internal Energy Market Dir. 94/22/EC(Authorizations for prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons) - Art.9(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2005/89/EC(Security of Electricity Supply and Infrastructure Investment) - Art.7 (1-4)(Reporting obligation) Reg. (EU) No 1316/2013(Connecting Europe Facility) - Art.22(Reporting obligation) Reg. No 256/2014(Energy infrastructure investment projects notification) - Art.3 and 5 (Reporting obligation) Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Art.1 (Reporting obligation) Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex I (Reporting obligation) Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Art. Annex II(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - Art.37(1) ( e )(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - Art.4(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/73/EC(Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - Art. 41(1)e (Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/73/EC(Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - Art.5(Reporting obligation) Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.3.1(Reporting obligation) Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.3.2(Reporting obligation) Nuclear Energy Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Art.16(1c)(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Art.20(1)(Reporting obligation) Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Art.8e(Reporting obligation) Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Art.8e(Reporting obligation) Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Art.9(1)(Reporting obligation) Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Art.14(1)(Reporting obligation) Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Art.14(3)(Reporting obligation) Decarbonisation / Renewable Energy Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Art.22(Reporting obligation) Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Art.4 + Annex VI (Planning obligation) Other Reg. (EC) No 1099/2008() - Art.6.4(Reporting obligation) Reg. (EU) 691/2011(European environmental economic accounts) - Art.6(Reporting obligation)


242

Costs of reporting and planning obligations

6. Please indicate the total time required (in man-days/year) for all activities to support the reporting/planning obligations

Obligations Man-days per year Average staff cost: monthly salary (€)

… 7. If any planning and reporting activities on this legislation are outsourced/subcontracted, please indicate the average yearly outsourcing costs (if available):

Obligations Yearly costs of outsourced/contracted activities (€)

… 8. If applicable, please provide an indication of an annual cost for equipment, software/electronic system and databases to support the reporting activities on national level

Obligations Annual costs (€)

9. To what extent do you think the current planning and reporting obligations in the legislation are still up to date?

Obligations To a great extent Somewhat Very little Not at all No opinion

… 10. In order to report, do you need to use any of the following electronic reporting systems? If so indicate how much time (in man-days per year) it takes per year for reporting • European Environmental Agency electronic reporting system ______ • CIRCA database ____ • NIF database ______ • Other EU database ______

11. To what extent is the reporting and planning resulting from your piece of EU legislation redundant with existing national obligations? (Multiple choice) Not at all • 0-10% • 10-25% • 25-50% • over 50%

12. According to your estimation, to what extent would a centralised EU electronic reporting system reduce the administrative costs related to reporting and planning? • The cost will reduce by 5-10% • the cost will reduce by 10-25% • the cost will reduce by 25-50% • the cost will reduce by over 50% • the cost will stay the same • the cost will increase

13. Additional information related to the costs of reporting/planning obligations __________________

Distribution of costs of reporting

14. If you have reporting costs, please indicate what share (%) of your costs of reporting is spent on the following • Collecting data • Preparing data to fit the reporting requirement Filling in the form • Preparing qualitative analysis for the report Other • Remaining value

Distribution of costs of planning

15. Pease indicate what share (%) of your costs of planning is spent on the following • Preparation of the plan • Setting of reporting/monitoring system to trace progress • Development of reporting templates (e.g. for reporting companies, local agencies) • Other


243

Impact on the implementation and enforcement of EU law 16. To what extent do the obligations contribute to improved compliance and transposition checking as well as improved monitoring of the implementation, enforcement and performance of EU law?

obligations

Considerable contribution

Moderate contribution

Low contribution

No contribution No opinion

17. From your perspective, to what extent have the obligations been important for policy change (e.g. development of sectorial policies) in the field of the respective directive/regulation in your Member State?

obligations Very important important Less important Not important No opinion

18. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to longer term predictability, and hence improved investment decisions and investment climate?

obligations Considerable contribution

Moderte contribution

Low contribution


Impact on national energy policy (energy supply and security) 19. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring and assessment of energy supply and security?



Low contribution

No contribution

No opinion/not relevant

Impact on national energy policy (energy markets) 20. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring and assessment of national and EU energy markets?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on national energy policy (energy efficiency) 21. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring and assessment of energy efficiency policies?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on national energy policy (climate targets) 22. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring of progress towards climate targets?



Low contribution

No contribution


23. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring of renewable energy developments and targets?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on national energy policy (research and innovation) 24. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring of research and innovation developments in climate and energy topics? obligations

Considerable contribution


Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on the coherence between Member States 25.From your perspective, to what extent do the current obligations contribute to the better integration of national energy systems with those of other countries and better cooperation of Member States at EU level?


244



Low contribution

No contribution


26. Do you have to report the same data under more than one reporting obligation?

• Yes • I don’t know

27. If yes, please indicate which data and under what reporting obligations ______________________ 28. Are there national practices that integrate separate planning and reporting obligations? • Yes • I don’t know 29. If yes, please explain what kind of integrated obligations are in place ______________________ 30. Please specify for which obligations you see inconsistencies concerning the timing and periodicity Obligations Timing Periodicity Both

31. Please explain what the inconsistencies are ______________________ Impact on transparency and measurability 32. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to the transparency of energy policy in Member States (e.g. wider availability of data)?


… 33. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to the transparency of public and private energy investment and spending in Member States?


… 34. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to collecting data on issues that were previously not measured?


… 35. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to collecting better quality and more accurate data?


… 36. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to collecting data on a consistent basis with other Member States to allow comparison / benchmarking?


… Impact on transparency and measurability (confidence in safety measures) 37. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations in the legislation contribute to the public confidence in safety measures in Member States?


… Efficiency of planning and reporting obligations 38. From your perspective, to what extent are the costs (i.e. administrative burden) of the planning and reporting obligations proportionate to the benefits?



245

… 39. From your perspective, to what extent are the costs (i.e. administrative burden) of the planning and reporting obligations justified, considering the achieved policy changes? Obligations

To a great extent Somewhat Very little Not at all No opinion

… 40. Did the following factors significantly influence the cost (i.e. administrative burden) of planning and reporting obligations? • Size of the Member State • The fact that competences are shared between national and regional level • The quality of data received • Redundant reporting and planning requirements • Complexity of national administration • Unavailability of technical solutions • The number of reporting stakeholders • Other, please specify

41. On which of the following stakeholders does fulfilling the obligations and collecting the respective data create an additional burden?

Obligation Public authorities

Large companies SMEs Other actors If other please

specify

42. Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey, your input is valuable to us. If you would like to receive a summary of the results of the survey, please fill in your email address ________________________ 43. Additional information _________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey, your input is valuable to us


246

Survey of European Institutions 1. Name of your organisation/division: _________________________________ 2. Your role in the organization: _________________________________ 3. Your name: ________________ 4. The pieces of legislation reported in the previous figure are listed below in the same order, with the reporting and planning obligations related to them. Please select the obligations you are responsible for (roll over the items below with your mouse to see the description of the corresponding obligations):

Energy efficiency Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive) - Art.3(4) Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.9(5) Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.5(4) Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.24(3) Energy supply security

Dir. 2013/30/EU(Offshore Oil and Gas Dir. ) - Art.25(3) Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration) - Art.8 Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - Art.14 Internal Energy market Dir. 94/22/EC(Authorizations for prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons) - Art.8(2) Reg. (EU) No 347/2013(Trans-European energy infrastructure) - Art.17

Reg. (EU) No 347/2013 (Trans-European energy infrastructure) - Art.5(5) Dec. 994/2012/EU(Information exchange on intergovernmental energy agreements) - Art.8 Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Art.8 Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - Art.47 Dir. 2009/73/EC(Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - Art.52 Reg. (EC) 713/2009(Establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators) - Art.13

Reg. (EC) 713/2009(Establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators) - Art.11 Reg. 714/2009(Access to cross-border electricity exchanges) - Art.24 Reg. 715/2009(Access to gas transmission networks) - Art.29 Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.4 Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.4 Reg. No 1227/2011(Wholesale energy market integrity and transparency) - Art.7(2) and(3)

Reg. No 256/2014(Energy infrastructure investment projects notification) - Art.10 Reg. 663/2009(Aid economic recovery by granting projects in energy field) - Art.28 Reg. (EC) 713/2009(establishing ACER) - Art. Nuclear Energy Coun. Dec. 2008/114/Euratom(Statutes for the Euratom treaty) - Art.3 Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Art.20(2) Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Art.9(2)

Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Art.14(2) Coun. Reg. 1368/2013 and 1369/2013(Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania) (Planning Obligation) - Art.6 Coun. Reg. 1368/2013 and 1369/2013(Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania) - Art.6 Decarbonisation/ Renewable Energy Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Dir. ) - Art.17(7) + 23(3) Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Dir. ) - Art.24 Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Dir. ) - Art.19(5)


247

Costs of reporting and planning obligations

5. Please indicate the total time required (in man-days/year) for all activities to support the reporting/planning obligations

Obligations Man-days per year Average staff cost: monthly salary (€)

… 6. If any planning and reporting activities on this legislation are outsourced/subcontracted, please indicate the average yearly outsourcing costs (if available):

Obligations Yearly costs of outsourced/contracted activities (€)

… 7. If applicable, please provide an indication of an annual cost for equipment, software/electronic system and databases to support the reporting activities Obligations Annual costs (€) 8. To what extent do you think the current planning and reporting obligations in the legislation are still up to date?


… 9. In order to report, do you need to use any of the following electronic reporting systems? If so indicate how much time (in man-days per year) it takes per year for reporting • European Environmental Agency electronic reporting system ______ • CIRCA database ____ • NIF database ______ • Other EU database ______ 10. To what extent is the reporting and planning resulting from your piece of EU legislation redundant with other existing obligations? (Multiple choice) Not at all • 0-10% • 10-25% • 25-50% • over 50% 11. According to your estimation, to what extent would a centralised EU electronic reporting system reduce the administrative costs related to reporting and planning? • The cost will reduce by 5-10% • the cost will reduce by 10-25% • the cost will reduce by 25-50% • the cost will reduce by over 50% • the cost will stay the same • the cost will increase 12. Additional information related to the costs of reporting/planning obligations __________________ Distribution of costs of reporting 13. If you have reporting costs, please indicate what share (%) of your costs of reporting is spent on the following • Collecting data • Preparing data to fit the reporting requirement Filling in the form • Preparing qualitative analysis for the report Other • Remaining value Distribution of costs of planning 14. Pease indicate what share (%) of your costs of planning is spent on the following • Preparation of the plan • Setting of reporting/monitoring system to trace progress • Development of reporting templates (e.g. for reporting companies, local agencies) • Other


248

Impact on the implementation and enforcement of EU law 15. To what extent do the obligations contribute to improved compliance and transposition checking as well as improved monitoring of the implementation, enforcement and performance of the EU laws?



Low contribution


16. From your perspective, to what extent have the obligations been important for policy change (e.g. development of sectorial policies) in the field of the respective directive/regulation? obligations Very important important Less important Not important No opinion 17. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to longer term predictability, and hence improved investment decisions and investment climate?



Low contribution


Impact on national energy policy (energy supply and security) 18. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring and assessment of energy supply and security?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on national energy policy (energy markets) 19. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring and assessment of national and EU energy markets?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on national energy policy (energy efficiency) 20. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring and assessment of energy efficiency policies?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on national energy policy (climate targets) 21. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring of progress towards climate targets?



Low contribution

No contribution


22. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring of renewable energy developments and targets?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on national energy policy (research and innovation) 23. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to better monitoring of research and innovation developments in climate and energy topics?



Low contribution

No contribution


Impact on the coherence between Member States 24. From your perspective, to what extent do the current obligations contribute to the Members States better integration of national energy and their better cooperation?



Low contribution

No contribution



249

25. Do you have to report the same data under more than one reporting obligation? • Yes • I don’t know 26. If yes, please indicate which data and under what reporting obligations ______________________ 27. Are there practices that integrate separate planning and reporting obligations?

• Yes • I don’t know

28. If yes, please explain what kind of integrated obligations are in place ______________________ 29. Please specify for which obligations you see inconsistencies concerning the timing and periodicity Obligations Timing Periodicity Both 30. Please explain what the inconsistencies are ______________________ Impact on transparency and measurability 31. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to the transparency of the EU energy policy (e.g. wider availability of data)?


… 32. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to the transparency of public and private energy investment and spending?


… 33. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to collecting data on issues that were previously not measured?


… 34. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to collecting better quality and more accurate data?


… 35. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations contribute to collecting data on a consistent basis to allow comparison / benchmarking?


… Impact on transparency and measurability (confidence in safety measures) 36. From your perspective, to what extent do the obligations in the legislation contribute to the public confidence in safety measures?


… Efficiency of planning and reporting obligations 37. From your perspective, to what extent are the costs (i.e. administrative burden) of the planning and reporting obligations proportionate to the benefits?


… 38. From your perspective, to what extent are the costs (i.e. administrative burden) of the planning and reporting obligations justified, considering the achieved policy changes?


250


… 39. Did the following factors significantly influence the cost (i.e. administrative burden) of planning and reporting obligations? • Size of the Member State • The fact that competences are shared between national and regional level • The quality of data received • Redundant reporting and planning requirements • Complexity of national administration • Unavailability of technical solutions • The number of reporting stakeholders • Other, please specify 40. On which of the following stakeholders does fulfilling the obligations and collecting the respective data create an additional burden?

Obligation Public authorities

Large companies SMEs Other actors If other please

specify 41. Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey, your input is valuable to us. If you would like to receive a summary of the results of the survey, please fill in your email address ________________________ 42. Additional information _________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey, your input is valuable to us.


251

Annex G: Survey results

Consultation report – Survey Preparation

The survey implemented in this study aims to collect information and feedback feeding the evaluation

analysis and the administrative cost of the reporting and planning obligations covered in this study.

The survey questionnaire was designed during the inception stage and was shared with the Commission

for comment.

The survey had two target group:

• agencies and ministries dealing with EU energy regulations in Member States; and

• Policy officers of the European Commission DG Energy and the EU Council dealing with various

pieces of the EU energy regulations, and the representatives of the European Agencies like

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.

The survey had two modules which followed the same structure, but had adjusted question

formulations adapted to the nature of the respondent. The content of the ongoing public consultation

was taken into consideration in the survey design to avoid repeating questions, since it is quite

probable that there is some overlap in the target group of respondents.

The full survey questionnaires are presented in Annex D. The overview of the responses from each

survey is presented in section 4.3 and 4.4 below.

Data collection

In the Members States (MS) survey module contact details were obtained and utilised for 803 potential

respondents. The email addresses were incorrect for 43 of these contacts as their invitation emails

bounced back. A number of those contacted forwarded the survey invitation to their colleagues, this

increased the total number of potential respondents by approximately 50-60 people.

In total 110 respondents provided 247 single obligation specific responses. Each respondent provided

inputs for 1 to 11 obligations. The latter was the case when several representatives of a MS provided

one consolidated input covering several obligations. The number of responses varies across countries.

The tables below show the statistics on responses from each MS and on each obligation. Annex F

presents a more detailed matrix indicating the number of responses per obligation and Member State.


252

Table 0-1: Number of obligation specific responses contributed by respondents from Member States

Austria 15 Italy 0

Belgium 26 Latvia 27

Bulgaria 11 Lithuania 23

Croatia 10 Luxembourg 1

Cyprus 14 Malta 19

Czech Republic 3 Netherlands 0

Denmark 0 Poland 1

Estonia 7 Portugal 4

Finland 5 Romania 6

France 11 Slovakia 10

Germany 4 Slovenia 3

Greece 11 Spain 5

Hungary 10 Sweden 0

Ireland 16 United Kingdom 5

Table 0-2: Number of responses received per obligation


253

The survey targeting the EC and European institutions was sent to 40 potential respondents, however

only five complete responses were received. All five respondents were from DG Energy. These five

respondents covered 11 obligations, as listed in the table below

Table 0-3: Responses collected for each obligation in the EC survey Obligation Number of

responses Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.24(3)Evaluation of annual reports and NEEAPs Energy supply security

1

Dir. 2013/30/EU(Offshore Oil and Gas Dir. ) - Art.25(3)Annual report based on the information reported by MS to the EC

1

Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration) - Art.8COM to analyse information and communicate it to MS

1

Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - Art.14Report on the security of gas supply to be included in annual reporting in Dir. 2009/73/EC (Internal Energy market)

1

Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.4Publish crude oil supply cost cif (and the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of duties and taxes charged)

1

Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.4Publish consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes charged (weekly Oil Bulletin)

1

Reg. 663/2009(Aid economic recovery by granting projects in energy field) - Art.28Yearly report on implementation

1

Coun. Dec. 2008/114/Euratom(Statutes for the Euratom treaty) - Art.3Report on the activities of the Agency in the previous year and a work programme for the next year

1

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Art.9(2)Report on progress made with the implementation of this Dir.

2

Coun. Reg. 1368/2013 and 1369/2013(Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania) (Planning Obligation) - Art.6Annual work programme

1

Coun. Reg. 1368/2013 and 1369/2013(Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania) - Art.6Progress report Decarbonisation/ Renewable Energy

1

Survey analysis on the cost of reporting and planning obligations

In this section, the costs related to the planning and reporting obligations are calculated for each

obligation. The costs figures are calculated in the following way:

Costs of reporting/planning obligations = Costs of person-days + Costs of outsourced/subcontracted

activities + Costs for equipment, software/electronic system/databases

Data were collected via a survey addressed to an extensive list of Member States stakeholders that are

responsible for the obligations covered by this study. From this survey, 254 data points on costs were

provided by the MS stakeholders101 and were used to compute the costs associated with each obligation.

The dataset on cost figures covers all EU countries, except for Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and

Sweden. An overview of the country coverage by obligation is presented in Annex F. Data were

collected for all obligations, with an average of 7 Member States providing data on costs per obligation.

Only one country provided costs figures for the obligation related to the annual report on oil and gas

installations and their safety (Dir. 2013/30/EU - Offshore Oil and Gas Directive). As a consequence,

results for this obligation should be carefully interpreted.

101 One respondent can be responsible for more than one obligation for its Member State.


254

In order to calculate the cost of (internal) person-days, the number of person-days per year required by

the obligation was multiplied by the monthly salary reported by the respondent divided by 18.3 person-

days per month (on the basis of 220 person-days per year). This produces a yearly cost figure related to

(internal) labour costs. Costs of outsourced and subcontracted activities, as well as costs for

equipment, software, electronic systems and databases were directly collected as annual amounts in

euros.

The coverage of the data ensures a complete overview of the obligations. However, not all MSs have

provided data for all obligations. This means that a comparison between obligations might be sensitive

to country coverage.

Overall, while data on person-days required by the obligations appear to be consistent across countries,

there are large differences in costs related to subcontracting/outsourcing and equipment/software for

some obligations. In order to address this issue of potential outliers, the median cost of Member States

was computed. The median cost is defined as the cost separating the higher half of the Member States

in terms of costs from the lower half. Average costs were calculated in order to identify the impact of

outliers, which were then examined manually and reported in the analysis when they provide a useful

additional insight. When the costs for outsourcing/subcontracting or equipment/software are only

reported by two countries, the median is still impacted by a potential outlier. In this case, this is also

reported in the text (and in the detailed tables in Annex G) and the figure should also be interpreted

carefully. This is never an issue for costs of person-days, as more data were provided and less variations

were observed for this cost category.

No cost figure was imputed to calculate median costs. However, when data on average monthly salary

was missing, the average salary provided by the same respondent for other obligations, or the average

salary provided by another respondent for the same country was imputed. A cleaning process was also

conducted and data were manually examined for each MS stakeholder in order to identify coding errors.

As cost figures are based on an average on 7 countries per obligation, their precision is limited, but

they still provide a relevant measure of the scale of the costs incurred by the obligations.

The following figures present the median costs of Member States per category of legislation. More

detailed information on the cost figures is available in Annex G.

Energy efficiency

As illustrated in figure below, median costs of Member States for obligations related to energy

efficiency legislation range between less than 1,000 euros per year to more than 70 thousand euros per

year. Large costs related to outsourcing and subcontracting activities are consistently reported by MS

stakeholders for this legislation category.

While the planning requirement on minimum energy performance (Dir. 2010/31/EU) presents a low cost

(about 2,000 euros per year), the two planning obligations of the Energy Efficiency Directive incur high

costs in terms of person-days (close to 10,000 euros per year and per planning obligation) in comparison

with other Energy Efficiency obligations, as well as substantial costs for outsourcing and subcontracting

(50,000 euros per year for NEEAPs/Art.3 and 20,000 euros for Art.4 on long-term strategy for mobilising

investment in the renovation of the national building stock).


255

Concerning reporting obligations, the obligation on the potential of cogeneration and district heating

(Art. 14(1),24, Annex XIII) of the Energy Efficiency Directive is the costliest (more than 70,000 euros per

year) and presents significant outsourcing/subcontracting costs consistently reported MS stakeholders as

well as costs related to equipment and software.

Another significant cost is observed for the reporting of all input data and assumptions used for cost-

optimal calculations and their results for Directive 2010/31/EU (Energy Performance of Buildings):

36,000 euros per year, including 20,000 euros for equipment/software and 12,000 euros for

outsourcing/subcontracting.

Other obligations in the Energy efficiency legislation incur costs of less than 7,000 euros per year.

Figure 0-1 Median cost of obligations (euros per year) – Energy efficiency


Energy supply security

According to the estimates, planning obligations for Regulation 994/2010 (Measures to safeguard

security of supply) are the costliest obligations in the Energy Supply Security legislation: costs related

to preventive action plans and emergency plans amount to 40,000 euros per year (mainly outsourcing

and subcontracting) and costs of risk assessment cost almost 60,000 euros per year. However, the latter

figure is based on two countries, with one country reporting a large cost for equipment/software that

might not be relevant to other countries.


256

Figure 0-2 Median cost of obligations (euros per year) – Energy supply security


The median costs of reporting obligations for Energy Supply Security legislation are lower than 10,000

euros per year, except for the reporting obligation of Regulation 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery

registration), which includes large costs for equipment and software. However, this cost is also based

on two countries, whith one country reporting a significant figure for this category and obligation.

Internal Energy Market

Median labour costs of reporting obligations in the Internal Energy Market category exceed 4,000 euros

per year, with largest costs in person-days associated with Directive 2009/72/EC (Common rules for the

internal market in electricity) and Directive 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in

natural gas).

Reporting obligations for these directives also incur large costs for equipment, software, electronic

systems and databases. However, the figures related to this category for these obligations should also

be carefully interpreted here as they rely on two Member States only and therefore could be potential

outliers. This is not an issue for labour costs. This also applies to the large costs of

outsourcing/subcontracting observed for the reporting on progress and investments made in projects of

common interest for Regulation 1316/2013 (Connecting Europe Facility).


257

Figure 0-3 Median cost of obligations (euros per year) – Internal energy market


Nuclear Energy

Total median costs for Nuclear Energy obligations are less than 6,000 euros per year, except for the

obligation related to topical peer reviews for Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom (Safety Nuclear

Installations). For this obligation, the cost is largely inflated by one MS stakeholder who reports large

costs for equipment and software. The largest labour cost is also observed for this obligation (about

3,200 euros per year).

The three other obligations with the largest median costs in this category are self-assessments and

international peer review for Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom (Management Radioactive Waste and

Spent Fuel) – about 5,700 euros per year, reporting on progress made with the implementation of

Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom (Safety Nuclear Installations) – 3,800 euros per year, and self-

assessments and international peer review for the same Directive – 2,900 euros per year.


258

Figure 0-4 Median cost of obligations (euros per year) – Nuclear energy


Decarbonisation/Renewable Energy

The median cost of Member States for the planning obligation for the Renewable Energy Directive is

10,000 euros per year. About half of the costs are labour costs, while the other half represents costs for

outsourcing and subcontracting activities.

The reporting obligation related to the progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable

sources for the same directive incurs costs of 4,000 euros per year. Only costs of labour for this

obligation were reported by the MS stakeholders.

Figure 0-5 Median cost of obligations (euros per year) – Decarbonisation/Renewable energy



259

Other obligations

The two obligations that are not included in the previous categories do not represent significant costs in

comparison with other obligations presented earlier. The median cost of Member States for the

reporting of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity,

and economy-wide material flow accounts for Regulation 691/2011 (European environmental economic

accounts) is close to 4,000 euros per year, which includes 2,500 euros of labour costs and 1,500 euros of

equipment/software. Reporting to Eurostat on the quality of the data transmitted and methodological

changes (Regulation 1099/2008) incurs about 1,500 euros of labour costs per year. However, the costs

related to this obligation seem to be interpreted differently depending on the MS stakeholders, as two

countries out of nine provided numbers of person-days that refer to a whole group of persons (more

than 1,000 of person-days per year), which are values that are not observed for any other obligation in

the survey responses. These countries are not taken into account in the median figures presented here.

Figure 0-6 Median cost of obligations (euros per year) – Other obligations


Estimation of total cost of MS obligations

In order to produce an estimation for the overall cost of reporting and planning obligations at EU level,

missing costs for Member States were imputed for each obligation with the median cost figures

observed in the survey results for other Member States. The sum of observed and imputed costs is

presented in this section.

Figure 0-7 shows that estimated total costs at EU level are close to 13 million euros per year for

reporting obligations and close to 7 million euros per year for planning obligations. The main topics in

terms of costs of reporting obligations are Internal Energy Market and Energy efficiency, each topic

accounting for about 5 million euros per year. Reporting obligations related to Energy supply security

and Nuclear energy generate costs close to 1.5 million euros per year for each of these topics. Costs of

planning obligations are close to 3 million euros per year for Energy efficiency (3.3 million euros) and

Energy supply security (2.8 million euros) topics. Obligations related to Decarbonisation/Renewable

Energy correspond to costs of about 500 thousand euros per year for reporting obligations and about

200 thousand euros per year for planning obligations.


260

Figure 0-7 Estimated total costs per year of reporting and planning obligations for MS – by topic


Figure 0-8 presents the distribution of costs across cost categories. Annual overall costs of person-days

are close to 3 million euros for reporting obligations, and 1 million euros for planning obligations. Costs

of outsourcing and subcontracting activities amount to 4 million euros per year for reporting obligations

and also 4 million euros for planning obligations. Costs of equipment and software are substantial for

reporting obligations and their estimated value at EU level is close to 6 million euros per year. These

costs are smaller for planning obligations (about 1 million euros per year).

Figure 0-8 Estimated total costs per year of reporting and planning obligations for MS – by cost category


Distribution of costs (Q14)

When examining the specific tasks required by reporting obligations, the collection of data is the main

cost category (32% of the costs in average), followed by the preparation of data to fit the reporting


261

requirement (26%), the preparation of qualitative analysis for the report (20%) and filling in the form

(13%).

Figure 0-9 Distribution of costs for reporting (average distribution based on 67 responses)


Concerning the specific tasks related to planning obligations, 36% of the costs are associated with the

preparation of the plan, while the rest of the cost are more or less equally distributed between setting

reporting/monitoring systems to trace progress (23%), the development of reporting templates (21%)

and other tasks (20%).

Figure 0-10 Distribution of costs for planning (average distribution based on 25 responses)


Impact of centralised system on costs (Q12)

Concerning the impact on costs of a centralised EU electronic system, a minority of respondents (14%)

think that a move to such a system would increase the costs of reporting/planning, while 46% of the

respondent consider that it would not affect their costs, and 40% consider that it could decrease their

costs, of which a majority would expect a decrease of between 5% and 25%.


262

Figure 0-11 According to your estimation, to what extent would a centralised EU electronic reporting system

reduce the administrative costs related to reporting and planning? (based on 92 responses)


Overview of responses on benefits of reporting and planning obligations

Contribution to improved compliance and transposition checking as well as improved monitoring

of the implementation, enforcement and performance of EU law (Q16)

The majority of respondents (irrespective of area) consider that obligations considerably or moderately

contribute to improved compliance, transposition checking, monitoring of the implementation

enforcement and performance of EU law (ca.39% and 32% respectively). This is the case for most areas

i.e. decarbonisation/renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy supply security, internal energy

market and other, obligations are considered to contribute considerably or moderately. A considerable

contribution was the dominant response in the decarbonisation/renewable energy and internal energy

market (ca. 59% and ca.50% respectively) areas. In the energy efficiency and energy supply security

areas the dominant responses are shared between considerable and moderate. In the area of nuclear

energy 26% of current respondents indicated a low contribution.


263

Figure 0-12: Impact of obligation on compliance and transposition checking, improved monitoring of

enforcement and performance of EU Law

Importance for policy change (e.g. development of sectorial policies) in the field of the respective

directive/regulation (Q17)

About 37% of current respondents (irrespective of area) consider that obligations have been important

for policy change. In the case of for decarbonisation/renewable energy and internal energy market

current responses predominantly indicate obligations as important (ca. 41% and ca.57% respectively).

This is also the case, though less pronounced, for energy efficiency and energy supply security (ca. 36%

and 33% respectively). The second most frequent response (and representing at least 25% of the

responses) is for decarbonisation/renewable energy very important (ca.25%), for energy efficiency less

important (35%) for energy supply security very important (30%). In the case of nuclear energy ca. 32%

indicated obligations as less important for policy change. In the case of other responses ca. 32%

indicated obligations as very important for policy change.


264

Figure 0-13: Importance of obligations for policy changes in the selected area in MSs

Contribution to longer term predictability, and hence improved investment decisions and

investment climate (Q18)

About 36% of the respondents (irrespective of area) consider that the obligations have brought a

moderate contribution to longer term predictability, and hence improved investment decisions and

investment climate. Across the different areas, the latter outcome applies for decarbonisation/

renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy supply security and internal energy market for which a

moderate contribution is the most frequent response. In the case of nuclear energy, responses are

mixed (ca. 39% have no opinion, ca. 23% indicated a moderate contribution, ca. 18% indicated a low

contribution and 15% no contribution at all). With respect to other responses, about half of the

respondents have no opinion, ca. 48%.


265

Figure 0-14: Impact of obligations on predictability of investment climate and better investment decisions

Contribute to better monitoring and assessment of energy supply and security (Q19)

The dominant answers of the current respondents, irrespective of the area as well as across the

different areas, are that obligations have brought either a considerable or a moderate contribution to

better monitoring and assessment of energy supply and security (ca. 42% and 32% respectively). In the

area of energy efficiency and of other there is only one response for each and hence they are excluded

from this preliminary analysis.


266

Figure 0-15: Impact of obligations on better monitoring and assessment of energy supply and security

Contribution to better monitoring and assessment of national and EU energy markets (Q20)

The dominant answers of respondents (irrespective of the area) are that obligations have brought a

moderate contribution to better monitoring and assessment of national and EU energy markets (ca.

44%). Across the different areas, the latter outcome applies for decarbonisation/renewable energy (ca.

60%) and internal energy market (ca. 49%) for which a moderate contribution is the dominant response.

The second most frequent response in the latter two areas was low contribution for decarbonisation/

renewable energy (ca. 20%) and considerable contribution for internal energy market (ca. 34%). The

results for energy supply security are mixed (ca. 33% answered no opinion, 28% moderate contribution,

23% considerable contribution and 13% no contribution). The areas energy efficiency and other are not

included in the description due to the low response available at this moment.


267

Figure 0-16: Impact of obligations on better monitoring and assessment of energy markets

Contribution to better monitoring and assessment of energy efficiency policies (Q21)

In the case of energy efficiency, about half of the current respondents consider that the obligations

have brought either a moderate or a considerable contribution to better monitoring and assessment of

energy efficiency policies (ca. 27% and 28% respectively). With respect to the area of internal energy

market, the results are shared between a low contribution of the obligation, a moderate contribution or

no contribution at all to better monitor and assess energy efficiency policies (ca. 36%, ca. 36% and ca.

22%, respectively). The areas decarbonisation/renewable energy, energy supply security and other are

not included in the description due to the low response available at this moment.


268

Figure 0-17: Impact of obligation on monitoring and assessment of energy efficiency policies

Contribution to better monitoring of progress towards climate target? (Q22)

Irrespective of the area, the results are mixed on the contribution of the obligations to better

monitoring of progress towards climate targets (ca. 30% considered a moderate contribution, ca. 20% no

contribution, ca. 18% indicated a considerable contribution, ca. 18% had no opinion and 14% answered a

low contribution). Across the different areas, the latter mixed outcome also applies to energy

efficiency and decarbonisation/renewable energy. In the case of internal energy market, about half of

the current respondents considered that the obligations made a moderate contribution (ca. 45%). The

areas energy supply security and other area are not included in the description due to the low response

available at this moment.


269

Figure 0-18: Impact of obligations on monitoring of progress towards climate targets

Contribution to better monitoring of renewable energy developments and targets (Q23)

Irrespective of the area, the results are mixed on the obligations’ contribution to better monitoring of

renewable energy developments and targets (ca. 29% considered a moderate contribution, ca. 20% a

low contribution or no contribution at all, ca. 18% indicated a considerable contribution and ca. 13%

had no opinion). Across the different areas, the latter mixed outcome also applies to energy efficiency.

In the case of decarbonisation/renewable energy, the majority of respondents answered a considerable

contribution of the obligations to better monitoring of renewable energy developments and targets (ca.

60%). Lastly, with respect to the area of internal energy market, about half of the respondents

considered a moderate contribution of the obligations contribute to better monitoring of progress

towards climate targets (ca. 45%). The areas energy supply security and other are not included in the

description due to the low response available at this moment.


270

Figure 0-19: Impact of obligation on better monitoring of renewable energy developments and targets

Contribution to better monitoring of research and innovation developments in climate and energy

topics (Q24)

About half of the current respondents (irrespective of area) consider that obligations have brought

either no contribution or low contribution to better monitoring of research and innovation

developments in climate and energy topics (ca.31% and 25% respectively). Across the different areas,

the results for decarbonisation/renewable energy show a low or moderate contribution (37% and 27%,

respectively). In the case of energy efficiency, results indicate no contribution or no opinion to reach

better monitoring of research and innovation developments in climate and energy topics (ca. 38% and

26%, respectively).


271

Figure 0-20: Impact of obligations on better monitoring of research and innovation developments in climate

and energy topics

Contribute to the better integration of national energy systems with those of other countries and

better cooperation of Member States at EU level (Q25)

Irrespective of areas, responses showed a mixed result for the obligations’ contribution to the better

integration of national energy systems with those of other countries and better cooperation of Member

States at EU level (ca. 24% indicated a low contribution, 22% a moderate or no opinion, 18% no

contribution and 15% a considerable contribution). Across the different areas, the latter mixed outcome

also applies to decarbonisation/renewable energy, internal energy market and energy supply security.

In the case of energy efficiency, the majority of responses indicated that the obligation brought a low

contribution or no contribution at all (20% and ca. 43%, respectively). In the case of nuclear energy,

responses show a low to moderate contribution of the obligations to the better integration of national

energy systems with those of other countries and better cooperation of Member States at EU level (ca.

37% and 23%, respectively).


272

Figure 0-21: Impact of obligations on better integration of national energy systems with other countries and

better cooperation across Member States

Contribute to the transparency of energy policy in Member States (e.g. wider availability of data)

(Q32)

The majority of current respondents (irrespective of area) consider that obligations contribute to a

great extent or somewhat to the transparency of energy policy in Member States (ca. 35% and ca. 33%,

respectively). Across the different areas the latter outcome applies for decarbonisation/renewable

energy (with ca. 47% to a great extent and ca. 30% somewhat), energy efficiency (with ca.30% % to a

great extent and ca. 42% somewhat), energy supply security (with ca.38% to a great extent and ca. 40%

somewhat) and internal energy market (with ca. 47% to a great extent and ca. 22% somewhat). In the

case of nuclear energy 47% of current respondents indicated that the obligations contribute somewhat

to the transparency of energy policy. In the case of other area, half of the respondents have no opinion

(ca. 50%).


273

Figure 0-22: Impact of obligations on transparency of energy policy in MS

Contribution to the transparency of public and private energy investment and spending in MS

(Q33)

The 39,8% of current respondents (irrespective of area) consider that obligations contribute to a great

extent or somewhat to the transparency of public and private energy investment and spending in

Member States (ca. 25,4% and ca. 14,4%, respectively). 34,7% of respondents consider that the impact

is very little or not at all. Across the different areas a stronger positive impact is seen in the

decarbonisation/renewable energy area (18 out of 30 responses), energy efficiency area (37 out of 80 of

responses) and internal energy market area (35 out of 75 responses). In the areas of nuclear energy and

energy security a share of responses that are positive about the contribution of obligation to the

transparency of investment and spending is somewhat lower. In the case of other area, more than half

of the respondents have no opinion and one third do not see any impact.


274

Figure 0-23: Impact of obligations on transparency of energy policy in MS

Contribution to collecting data on issues that were previously not measured (Q34)

Around 38% of current respondents consider that obligations have somewhat contributed to the

collection of data on issues that were not previously measured. Across the different areas the latter

indication of a somewhat contribution applies in the area of decarbonisation/renewable energy, energy

efficiency and internal energy market (with ca.55%, 51% 42% of respondents respectively). In energy

supply security respondents consider that obligations have either somewhat (ca.26%) or to a great

extent (ca. 27%) contributed to the collection of data on issues that were not previously measured. In

nuclear energy ca. 35% responded consider the contribution to be very little and ca.24% somewhat. In

the case of other results are mixed.


275

Figure 0-24: Collecting data by obligations on issues that were previously not measured

Contribution to collecting better quality and more accurate data (Q35)

More than half of current respondents have responded positive regarding the contribution of obligations

to the collection of better quality and more accurate data (in particular ca. 30% of respondents

considered that obligations contribute to a great extent and ca. 36% somewhat). Across the different

areas decarbonisation/renewable energy and energy efficiency consider a somewhat contribution (of

ca. 50% and ca. 44% respectively) while energy supply security and internal energy market consider a

great extent contribution (ca. 38% and ca. 39% respectively). In the case of nuclear energy ca. 25%

responses are more mixed with also 26% of respondents considering a very little contribution (together

with ca. 27% somewhat and ca. 21% to a great extent). In the case of other the dominant replies are

equally split between somewhat and to a great extent (ca. 37% each).


276

Figure 0-25: Collecting better quality data by obligations

Contribution to collecting data on a consistent basis with other Member States to allow

comparison / benchmarking? (Q36)

More than half of current respondents have responded positive regarding the contribution of obligations

to collecting data on a consistent basis with other Member States to allow comparison / benchmarking

(in particular ca. 34% of respondents considered that obligations contribute to a great extent and

ca.37% somewhat). Across the different areas decarbonisation/renewable energy, energy efficiency and

nuclear energy consider a somewhat contribution (of ca. 53%, 46% and 45% respectively) while energy

supply security and internal energy market consider a great extent contribution (ca. 47% and 43%

respectively). In the case of other the dominant replies are equally split between somewhat and to a

great extent (ca. 32% and 37% respectively).


277

Figure 0-26: Consistent data collection to allow benchmarking across Member States

Contribution to the public confidence in safety measures in Member States (Q37)

This question can only be described for the area nuclear energy for which ca. 43% of respondents

consider a somewhat contribution of obligations to public confidence in safety measures in Member

States and ca. 28% very little.

Figure 0-27 Contribution to the public confidence in Member States


278

Proportionality of costs (i.e. administrative burden) of the planning and reporting obligations to

the benefits (Q38)


reporting obligations are somewhat proportionate to the benefits. Across the different areas around

half of respondents consider that costs are somewhat proportionate to benefits in the areas

decarbonisation/renewable energy, internal energy market and nuclear energy. In the areas

decarbonisation/renewable energy and internal energy market proportionality of costs and benefits is

considered to be of great extend for ca. 20% and ca. 25% of respondents respectively. On the other

hand, in nuclear energy ca. 30% consider proportionality to be very little. In the case of energy

efficiency and energy supply security ca. 39% and ca. ca. 33% respectively consider that costs are

somewhat proportionate to benefits. In Energy efficiency ca. 21% consider proportionality to be very

little and in energy supply security ca.30% consider that costs and benefits are to a great extent

proportionate.

Figure 0-28: How much are the administrative cost of the planning and reporting obligations proportionate to

benefits

Extent to which the costs (i.e. administrative burden) of the planning and reporting obligations

are justified by the achieved policy changes (Q39)


reporting obligations are somewhat justified, considering the achieved policy changes. Also across all

the different areas the costs are predominantly considered somewhat justified. This is followed by costs

justified to a great extent for decarbonisation/renewable energy (ca. 27%), very little justification in

the case of energy efficiency (ca. 25%) and internal energy market (ca. 20%) and not at all considered

justified (ca. 26%) in the case of nuclear energy.


279

Figure 0-29: How much is the administrative burden of the planning and reporting obligations justified by

achieved policy changes

Other issues covered in survey

Report the same data under more than one reporting obligation (Q26)

In terms of overlaps in reporting data 43% of the current respondents indicated that they did not report

the same data under more than one reporting obligation. However, ca. 41% of the respondents

encountered that situation. Lastly, ca. 15% of the respondents have no idea about the possible overlap

of their data.

Figure 0-30: Overlaps in reporting the data as indicated by respondents


280

The overlapping obligations referenced by the respondents are the following:

• Obligations on Nuclear regulations often overlap with the obligations on international

conventions:

E.g. Safety of Nuclear Installations Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom and Convention on Nuclear Safety

Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom (Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) and Joint

Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste

Management;

Many noted that reporting on various legislations is duplicated with reporting for the regulation

on energy statistics (1099/2008). Namely these are data reported under crude oil consumption

and imports (2964/95), biofuels consumption (2015/652), on alternative fuels market

development under 2014/94 and 2009/28, Energy efficiency 2012/27 and Renewable Energy

(2009/28)

• Energy statistics reported under the EU regulations is also reported to the International Energy

Agency

• Reporting on transparency of electricity and gas markets (Article 37 2009/72/EC, Article 4

2009/72/EC), on adequacy of electricity systems supply (2005/89/EC article 7 (1-4))

• Some overlaps were reported between renewable energy and energy efficiency directives

related reporting, as well as between energy efficiency and energy performance of building

directives reporting,

There are also overlapping obligations with national legislation include the following: national

and EU report on oil stocks and emergency oil stocks, national, EU and international reports on

nuclear safety, national and EU report on renewable energy, electricity and gas market reports

prepared for the national government and the ACER ;

• Duplicative reporting on greenhouse gases emissions was reported under Reg 525/2013

monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and Reg.691/2011, European

environmental economic accounts. Art.6 reporting of statistics on air emission accounts,

environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and economy-wide material flow

accounts

National practices that integrate separate planning and reporting obligations? (Q28)

In terms of national practices that integrate separate planning and reporting obligations the results

show that 49% of the respondents answered that such practice did not occur in their own country while

20% reported that it did happen. Furthermore, 31% of the respondents do not know of such practices.


281

Figure 0-31: National practices that integrated separate planning and reporting obligations

Inconsistencies in obligations concerning the timing and periodicity. (Q30, Q31)

Irrespective of the area, responses indicated inconsistencies in the timing and periodicity of obligations

(24 and 21 responses respectively in a total of 67 responses). Inconsistencies for both the timing and

the periodicity simultaneously were indicated in 22 responses. Across the different areas, this latter

mixed outcome applies for decarbonisation/renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy supply

security and nuclear energy. In the case of internal energy market, 6 responses out of 8 indicated

inconsistencies regarding the timing of obligations. The area other is not included in the description

due to the low response numbers available at this moment.

Figure 0-32: Inconsistencies concerning the timing and periodicity


282

Up-to-date obligations (Q9)

The following figures present the extent to which MS stakeholders think that the current planning and

reporting obligations in the legislation are still up to date.

Figure 0-33 Is the current planning/reporting obligation still up-to-date? - Energy efficiency

Source: authors.

Figure 0-34 Is the current planning/reporting obligation still up-to-date? - Energy supply security

Source: authors.


283

Figure 0-35 Is the current planning/reporting obligation still up-to-date? - Internal Energy Market

Source: authors.

Figure 0-36 Is the current planning/reporting obligation still up-to-date? - Nuclear Energy

Source: authors.


284

Figure 0-37 Is the current planning/reporting obligation still up-to-date? - Decarbonisation / Renewable Energy

Source: authors.

Figure 0-38 Is the current planning/reporting obligation still up-to-date? – Other obligations

Source: authors.

Redundancy of obligations (Q11)

Overall, 34% of the respondents think that there is no redundancy between EU legislation and national

obligation. 48% consider that less than half of the obligations are redundant between EU and national

level, and 18% think than more than half of the obligations are redundant.

Figure 0-39 To what extent is the reporting and planning resulting from your piece of EU legislation redundant

with existing national obligation? (based on 96 responses)

Source: authors.

Use of electronic systems (Q10)

The following table presents the number of MS stakeholders that reported using specific electronic

systems. Out of the 110 respondents, 18 reported using the CIRCA database, 4 the NIF database and 3


285

the EEA electronic reporting system. The number of man-days per year required for reporting using

these systems range between 4 and 6 days per year in average.

Table 0-4 Use of electronic systems

Respondents using the system average man-days per year for reporting

EEA electronic reporting system 3 5

CIRCA database 18 6

NIF database 4 4

Other databases Eurostat, e-DAMIS, EMOS, Self-assessment for Peer Review performed by IAEA software (SARIS)

Source: authors.

The use of CIRCA does not appear to be related to specific obligations, as the respondents that reported

using this database cover together 32 obligations in the scope of this study.

The use of EEA electronic reporting system was reported by stakeholders responsible for the reporting

of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and

economy-wide material flow accounts for Regulation (EU) 691/2011 (European environmental economic

accounts) and the reporting on prospecting, exploration and production for Directive 94/22/EC

(Authorizations for prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons).

The NIF database is used for reporting obligations related to Directive 2010/31/EU (Energy Performance

of Buildings) and Directive 2012/27/EU (Energy Efficiency Directive).

Other databases or systems mentioned by the respondents are Eurostat, e-DAMIS, EMOS and SARIS.

Factors that significantly influence the cost (i.e. administrative burden) of planning and reporting

obligations? (Q40)

This question applies to the energy efficiency area only. Among the factors significantly influencing the

cost of planning and reporting obligations, ‘the number of reporting stakeholders’, ‘the quality of data

received’ and the ‘size of the member state’ account together for ca. 60% of the responses.

‘Unavailability of technical solutions’ follows (with ca. 12%) and ‘the fact that competences are shared

between national and regional level’, ‘redundant reporting and planning requirements’ and ‘complexity

of national administration’ represent ca. 8% of responses each.


286

Figure 0-40: Factors influencing the administrative burden of planning and reporting obligations

Stakeholders bearing additional burden in fulfilling the obligations and collecting the respective

data (Q41)

The additional burden from fulfilling the obligations and collecting the respective data (irrespective of

area) is experienced the most by public authorities (ca. 53%) followed with a large distance by large

companies (ca. 21%) and SMEs (ca. 11%). Across all the different areas more than half of responses

indicated public authorities followed by large companies with the exception of the area energy

efficiency according to which SMEs are the second stakeholder experiencing additional burden from

fulfilling the obligations and collecting the respective data.


287

Figure 0-41: Stakeholders bearing an additional burden by reporting obligations by area


288

Country coverage of obligations in the MS survey

Aus

tria

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Croa

tia

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Den

mar

k

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herl

ands

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

en

Uni

ted

King

dom

Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive) - Enforcement activities and level of

compliance/Art.3(3) x x x x x x x x

Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - List of existing measures and instruments, including financial/Art.10.2

x x x x x x

Planning obligation - Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Planning

requirement on minimum energy performance requirements/Art.9.1

x x x x x x

Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Report all input data and

assumptions used for cost-optimal calculations and their results/Art.5.2

x x x x x x

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Potential of cogeneration and district

heating and cooling/Art.14(1), 24, Annex XIII x x x x x x

Planning obligation - Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - NEEAPs/Art.3, 24,

Annex XIV x x x x x x x x

Planning obligation - Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Long-term strategy for

mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock/Art.4

x x x x x x

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Progress report/Art.7, 24, Annex XIV x x x x x x x x x x

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - statistics on national electricity and heat production from high and low efficiency

cogeneration/Art.24 (6)

x x x x x x x

Dir. 2013/30/EU(Offshore Oil and Gas Directive) - Annual report on oil and gas installations and their safety/Art.25(1),

Annex IX point 3

x

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - 1.Annual summary copy of the stock

register/Art.6 x x x x x x x x x x x

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - 3. Monthly statistical summaries of emergency

stocks/Art.12 x x x x x x x x x x x

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - 4. Monthly statistical summaries of specific

stocks/Art.13 x x x


289

Aus

tria

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Croa

tia

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Den

mar

k

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herl

ands

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

en

Uni

ted

King

dom

Dir. 2009/119/EC (Oil Stocks Directive) - 5. Monthly statistical summaries of commercial

stocks/Art.14 x x x x x x x x x x

Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration) - Report at regular intervals on the conditions under which the oil imports or

deliveries have taken place/Art.2, 7

x x x x

Planning obligation - Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - 1.

Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans/Art.5

x x x x x x

Planning obligation - Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - 2. Risk

assessment/Art.9 x x x x x x

Dir. 94/22/EC(Authorizations for prospection, exploration and production of

hydrocarbons) - Annual report on prospecting, exploration and

production/Art.9

x x

Dir. 2005/89/EC(Security of Electricity Supply and Infrastructure Investment) -

Report on overall adequacy of the electricity system to supply current and projected

demands for electricity/Art.7 (1-4)

x x x x x

Reg. (EU) No 1316/2013(Connecting Europe Facility) - Report on progress and

investments made in projects of common interest/Art.22

x x x

Reg. No 256/2014(Energy infrastructure investment projects notification) - Reporting

on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European

Union/Art.3 and 5

x x x x x x

Dir. 2008/92/EC (Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - 1. Suppliers to

communicate prices/Art.1 x x x

Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex I: Gas prices

reports/Art. Annex I x x x x x

Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex II: Electricity prices report /Art. Annex II

x x x x x x x

Dir. 2009/72/EC (Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - 1. National

Regulatory Authority annual report/Art.37(1) ( e )

x x x x x x


290

Aus

tria

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Croa

tia

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Den

mar

k

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herl

ands

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

en

Uni

ted

King

dom

Dir. 2009/72/EC (Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - 2. Monitoring

of security of supply by NRA/Art.4 x x x x x x

Dir. 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - 1. NRA

annual report/Art. 41(1) e x x x x x

Dir. 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - 2.

Monitoring of security of gas supply by NRA/Art.5

x x x x

Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Report on crude oil supply cost and consumer

prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of all taxes in

force/Art.3.1

x x x

Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) -

Report on consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes in force

/Art.3.2

x x x x x x

Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom (Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive

waste and spent fuel) - Inform on shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third

countries/Art.16(1c)

x x x x

Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom (Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive

waste and spent fuel) - Report on implementation of the directive/Art.20(1)

x x x x x x x x x

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Self-assessment and international peer review/Art.8e

x x x x x x

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Topical peer review/Art.8e x x x x x

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive/Art.9(1)

x x x x x x x

Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Report

on implementation/Art.14(1) x x x x x x x

Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Self-

assessments and international peer reviews/Art.14(3)

x x x x x x x x

Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Progress in the promotion and

use of energy from renewable sources/Art.22 x x x x x x x x x


291

Aus

tria

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Croa

tia

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Den

mar

k

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herl

ands

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

en

Uni

ted

King

dom

Planning obligation - Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) -

National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP)/Art.4 + Annex VI

x x x x x x x

Planning obligation - Dir. 2014/94/EU(Alternative Fuels Infrastructure) - Adoption of national policy framework (to be developed by MS by 18 Nov 2016)/Art.3

x x

Reg. (EC) No 1099/2008() - Every five years, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the

data transmitted as well as on any methodological changes that have been

made./Art.6.4

Reg. (EU) 691/2011(European environmental economic accounts) - Reporting of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and

economy-wide material flow accounts./Art.6

x x x x x x x x x


293

Detail of cost figures

Table 0-5 Average and median costs of obligations (euros per year) - Energy efficiency Energy

efficiency Median cost figures

Cost of man-days

Outsourcing & subcontr.

Equip., soft., … Total

Planning obligation - Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Planning requirement on minimum energy performance requirements/Art.9.1 2,131 - - 2,131

Planning obligation - Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - NEEAPs/Art.3, 24, Annex XIV 9,610 50,000 70 59,680 Planning obligation - Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Long-term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock/Art.4 9,096 20,000 - 29,096

Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive) - Enforcement activities and level of compliance/Art.3(3) 1,724 5,011 111 6,846 Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - List of existing measures and instruments, including financial/Art.10.2 1,270 - - 1,270 Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Report all input data and assumptions used for cost-optimal calculations and their results/Art.5.2 4,098 12,000

20,000 36,098

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Potential of cogeneration and district heating and cooling/Art.14(1), 24, Annex XIII 1,166 60,000

12,500 73,666

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Progress report/Art.7, 24, Annex XIV 1,634 2,420 70 4,124 Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - statistics on national electricity and heat production from high and low efficiency cogeneration/Art.24 (6) 620 - 35 655



294

Table 0-6 Average and median costs of obligations (euros per year) - Energy supply security Energy supply

security Median cost figures

Cost of man-days



Planning obligation - Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - 1. Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans/Art.5 3,456 36,000

1,500 40,956

Planning obligation - Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - 2. Risk assessment/Art.9 3,456 14,000

40,500 57,956

Dir. 2013/30/EU(Offshore Oil and Gas Directive) - Annual report on oil and gas installations and their safety/Art.25(1), Annex IX point 3 9,344 - - 9,344

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - 1.Annual summary copy of the stock register/Art.6 1,350 -

1,060 2,410

Dir. 2009/119/EC (Oil Stocks Directive) - 3. Monthly statistical summaries of emergency stocks/Art.12 1,535 -

1,060 2,595

Dir. 2009/119/EC (Oil Stocks Directive) - 4. Monthly statistical summaries of specific stocks/Art.13 490 -

1,060 1,550

Dir. 2009/119/EC (Oil Stocks Directive) - 5. Monthly statistical summaries of commercial stocks/Art.14 1,311 -

2,000 3,311

Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration) - Report at regular intervals on the conditions under which the oil imports or deliveries have taken place/Art.2, 7 1,128 -

26,000 27,128

Source: Member States survey. Note: for Dir. 2013/30/EU, only one MS stakeholder contributed to the survey.


295

Table 0-7 Average and median costs of obligations (euros per year) – Internal energy market Internal energy market

Median cost figures

Cost of man-days



Dir. 94/22/EC(Authorizations for prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons) - Annual report on prospecting, exploration and production/Art.9 1,689 - - 1,689 Dir. 2005/89/EC(Security of Electricity Supply and Infrastructure Investment) - Report on overall adequacy of the electricity system to supply current and projected demands for electricity/Art.7 (1-4) 2,732 - 102 2,834 Reg. (EU) No 1316/2013(Connecting Europe Facility) - Report on progress and investments made in projects of common interest/Art.22 1,148 25,000 207 26,355 Reg. No 256/2014(Energy infrastructure investment projects notification) - Reporting on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union/Art.3 and 5 293 - 114 407 Dir. 2008/92/EC (Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - 1. Suppliers to communicate prices/Art.1 492 - - 492 Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex I: Gas prices reports/Art. Annex I 1,006 - 500 1,506 Dir. 2008/92/EC (Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex II: Electricity prices report /Art. Annex II 812 - 500 1,312 Dir. 2009/72/EC (Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - 1. National Regulatory Authority annual report/Art.37(1) ( e ) 3,558 350 45,045 48,953 Dir. 2009/72/EC (Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - 2. Monitoring of security of supply by NRA/Art.4 3,279 - 10,000 13,279 Dir. 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - 1. NRA annual report/Art. 41(1) e 4,001 350 45,000 49,351 Dir. 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - 2. Monitoring of security of gas supply by NRA/Art.5 1,503 - 15,000 16,503 Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Report on crude oil supply cost and consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of all taxes in force/Art.3.1 1,163 - 2,000 3,163 Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Report on consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes in force /Art.3.2 1,426 - 1,057 2,483



296

Table 0-8 Average and median costs of obligations (euros per year) – Nuclear energy Nuclear Energy Median cost figures

Cost of man-days



Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Inform on shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries/Art.16(1c) 1,293 - - 1,293 Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Report on implementation of the directive/Art.20(1) 656 - - 656 Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Self-assessment and international peer review/Art.8e 2,900 - - 2,900 Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Topical peer review/Art.8e 3,279 2,500

20,000 25,779

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive/Art.9(1) 1,310 2,500 - 3,810 Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Report on implementation/Art.14(1) 1,310 - - 1,310 Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Self-assessments and international peer reviews/Art.14(3) 3,005 250

2,500 5,755



297

Table 0-9 Average and median costs of obligations (euros per year) – Decarbonisation/Renewable energy Decarbonisation/Renewable

Energy Median cost figures

Cost of man-days



Planning obligation - Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP)/Art.4 + Annex VI 4,809 5,500 - 10,309

Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources/Art.22 4,372 -

35 4,407


Table 0-10 Average and median costs of obligations (euros per year) – Other obligations Other Median cost figures

Cost of man-days



Reg. (EC) No 1099/2008() - Every five years, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the data transmitted as well as on any methodological changes that have been made./Art.6.4 1,677 - - 1,677 Reg. (EU) 691/2011(European environmental economic accounts) - Reporting of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and economy-wide material flow accounts./Art.6 2,500 56

1,611 4,167



299

Annex H: Detailed survey responses The following tables give detailed overviews of survey responses on effectiveness, on whether obligations are still up to date, and on duplications in reporting.

Overview of Members States’ responses relevant to effectiveness Note: Positive is the percentage of respondents who replied considerable and moderate, excluding those who gave no opinion. Green is >66%, Amber is 50-66%, Red is <50% Total N is a total number of responses including no opinion

Q16 i

mpr

oved

co

mpl

iance

, tra

nspo

sitio

n ch

eckin

g,

mon

itorin

g of

the

impl

emen

tatio

n

Q17 b

een

impo

rtant

for

polic

y cha

nge (

e.g.

deve

lopm

ent o

f sec

tora

l po

licies

). Q1

8 lon

ger t

erm

pr

edict

abilit

y, an

d he

nce

impr

oved

inve

stm

ent

decis

ions

and

inve

stm

ent

clim

ate

Q19 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

ener

gy su

pply

and

secu

rity

Q20 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

natio

nal a

nd E

U en

ergy

m

arke

ts

Q21 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

ener

gy ef

ficien

cy p

olici

es

Q22 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g of

pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s clim

ate

targ

et?

Q2

3bet

ter m

onito

ring

of

rene

wabl

e ene

rgy

deve

lopm

ents

and

targ

ets

Q24 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g of

re

sear

ch an

d in

nova

tion

deve

lopm

ents

in cl

imat

e an

d en

ergy

topi

cs

Q25 b

ette

r int

egra

tion

of

natio

nal e

nerg

y sys

tem

s wi

th th

ose o

f oth

er

coun

tries

and

bette

r co

oper

atio

n of

Mem

ber

Q32 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f en

ergy

pol

icy in

Mem

ber

Stat

es (e

.g. w

ider

av

ailab

ility o

f dat

a)

Q33 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f pu

blic

and

priva

te en

ergy

in

vest

men

t and

spen

ding

Q3

4 col

lectin

g da

ta o

n iss

ues t

hat w

ere

prev

ious

ly no

t mea

sure

d Q3

5 col

lectin

g be

tter

quali

ty an

d m

ore

accu

rate

dat

a Q3

6 col

lectin

g da

ta o

n a

cons

isten

t bas

is wi

th

othe

r Mem

ber S

tate

s to

allow

com

paris

on /

benc

hmar

king?

Q3

7pub

lic co

nfid

ence

in

safe

ty m

easu

res i

n Me

mbe

r Sta

tes

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

posi

tive

Tota

l N

Decarbonisation / RE Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Art.22(Reporting obligation)

50% 4 50% 4 50% 5 50% 4 50% 4 50% 5 67% 3 50% 4 50% 5 67% 4 33% 3 67% 3 50% 4 67% 3

Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Art.4 + Annex VI (Planning obligation)

100% 3 50% 4 67% 4 50% 4 67% 3 50% 4 67% 3 50% 4 50% 5 67% 3 50% 2 50% 4 50% 4 67% 3

Energy efficiency Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive) - Art.3(3)(Reporting obligation)

33% 4 67% 3 33% 3 50% 4 50% 3 50% 3 33% 4 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4 33% 3 67% 4

Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.10.2(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 50% 2 67% 4 33% 3 33% 4 33% 3 33% 4 50% 2 67% 3 33% 3 33% 3 33% 3

Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.5.2(Reporting obligation)

100% 2 50% 4 67% 4 67% 3 50% 5 33% 3 50% 3 67% 3 50% 4 67% 3 67% 3 67% 3

Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) - Art.9.1 (Planning obligation)

67% 3 50% 4 100% 3 50% 2 50% 5 67% 3 67% 4 100% 2 50% 4 33% 3 33% 3 67% 3

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.14(1), 24, Annex XIII(Reporting obligation)

50% 2 33% 3 33% 4 50% 3 50% 3 33% 4 33% 4 50% 3 50% 3 33% 4 33% 3 50% 3 33% 3

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.24 (6)(Reporting obligation)

50% 4 50% 5 50% 5 0% 1 0% 1 33% 4 50% 5 50% 5 0% 1 0% 3 67% 4 33% 4 67% 4 67% 4 100% 3

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.3, 24, Annex XIV (Planning obligation)

67% 3 67% 3 50% 5 50% 5 67% 4 33% 4 33% 4 33% 4 67% 4 67% 4 67% 3 67% 3 100% 3

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.4 (Planning obligation)

67% 3 50% 2 50% 5 50% 5 50% 3 33% 4 0% 2 33% 4 67% 3 67% 3 50% 4 50% 4 50% 4

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Art.7, 24, Annex XIV (Reporting obligation)

67% 3 67% 4 50% 5 100% 1 67% 3 50% 5 50% 3 50% 5 33% 4 100% 3 50% 5 67% 4 50% 4 100% 3

Energy supply security Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.12(Reporting obligation)

100% 3 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4 50% 3 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 67% 4 67% 4 50% 5 50% 5 50% 4 100% 3


300

Q16 i

mpr

oved

co

mpl

iance

, tra

nspo

sitio

n ch

eckin

g,

mon

itorin

g of

the

impl

emen

tatio

n

Q17 b

een

impo

rtant

for

polic

y cha

nge (

e.g.

deve

lopm

ent o

f sec

tora

l po

licies

). Q1

8 lon

ger t

erm

pr

edict

abilit

y, an

d he

nce

impr

oved

inve

stm

ent

decis

ions

and

inve

stm

ent

clim

ate

Q19 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

ener

gy su

pply

and

secu

rity

Q20 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

natio

nal a

nd E

U en

ergy

m

arke

ts

Q21 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

ener

gy ef

ficien

cy p

olici

es

Q22 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g of

pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s clim

ate

targ

et?

Q2

3bet

ter m

onito

ring

of

rene

wabl

e ene

rgy

deve

lopm

ents

and

targ

ets

Q24 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g of

re

sear

ch an

d in

nova

tion

deve

lopm

ents

in cl

imat

e an

d en

ergy

topi

cs

Q25 b

ette

r int

egra

tion

of

natio

nal e

nerg

y sys

tem

s wi

th th

ose o

f oth

er

coun

tries

and

bette

r co

oper

atio

n of

Mem

ber

Q32 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f en

ergy

pol

icy in

Mem

ber

Stat

es (e

.g. w

ider

av

ailab

ility o

f dat

a)

Q33 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f pu

blic

and

priva

te en

ergy

in

vest

men

t and

spen

ding

Q3

4 col

lectin

g da

ta o

n iss

ues t

hat w

ere

prev

ious

ly no

t mea

sure

d Q3

5 col

lectin

g be

tter

quali

ty an

d m

ore

accu

rate

dat

a Q3

6 col

lectin

g da

ta o

n a

cons

isten

t bas

is wi

th

othe

r Mem

ber S

tate

s to

allow

com

paris

on /

benc

hmar

king?

Q3

7pub

lic co

nfid

ence

in

safe

ty m

easu

res i

n Me

mbe

r Sta

tes

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.13(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 67% 4 33% 4 67% 4 50% 3 50% 3 67% 4 50% 3 50% 3 33% 4 67% 4


100% 3 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4 50% 5 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 50% 5 50% 5 50% 5 50% 5 50% 4 67% 4


50% 5 67% 4 33% 4 50% 5 0% 2 50% 5 50% 5 33% 4 50% 5 50% 4 50% 5

Dir. 2013/30/EU(Offshore Oil and Gas Directive) - Art.25(1), Annex IX point 3(Reporting obligation)

100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 1 1 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 100%

1 100% 1 100%

1

Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration) - Art.2, 7(Reporting obligation)

100% 2 50% 2 67% 4 100% 2 100% 3 33% 4 100% 3 50% 3 50% 5 67% 3 67% 3

Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - Art.5 (Planning obligation)

100% 2 67% 3 100% 3 100% 2 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 67% 3 100% 2 67% 4 67% 3 50% 4 50% 3

Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - Art.9 (Planning obligation)

67% 3 67% 3 67% 3 100% 2 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 67% 3 67% 3 67% 3 67% 3 50% 4 50% 3

Internal Energy Market Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.3.1(Reporting obligation)

100% 2 50% 2 50% 3 67% 3 100% 3 50% 3 100% 2 50% 3 100% 1 67% 3 100% 2

Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) - Art.3.2(Reporting obligation)

67% 3 50% 3 33% 4 50% 4 50% 5 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 33% 4 67% 4 33% 4 67% 4 67% 3 100% 2

Dir. 2005/89/EC(Security of Electricity Supply and Infrastructure Investment) - Art.7 (1-4)(Reporting obligation)

100% 3 100% 3 100% 2 67% 3 100% 2 100% 1 100% 1 50% 2 50% 2 100%

2 67% 3 67% 3 50% 2

Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex I(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 67% 4 0% 3 67% 4 50% 3 67% 4 50% 3 67% 4 50% 4 67% 3

Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Art.1(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 67% 4 0% 3 67% 3 50% 3 67% 4 50% 3 50% 3 33% 3 67% 4

Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Art.Annex II(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 67% 4 33% 4 67% 4 0% 1 100% 1 0% 1 50% 3 67% 4 33% 4 67% 4 50% 4 67% 3

Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - Art.37(1) ( e )(Reporting obligation)

100% 2 50% 2 50% 2 100% 2 50% 3 50% 3 50% 3 67% 3 100% 2 67% 3 67% 3 50% 4 67% 3

Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - Art.4(Reporting obligation)

67% 3 67% 3 50% 2 100% 2 50% 3 50% 3 67% 4 67% 3 50% 3 67% 3 33% 4 67% 4 67% 4


301

Q16 i

mpr

oved

co

mpl

iance

, tra

nspo

sitio

n ch

eckin

g,

mon

itorin

g of

the

impl

emen

tatio

n

Q17 b

een

impo

rtant

for

polic

y cha

nge (

e.g.

deve

lopm

ent o

f sec

tora

l po

licies

). Q1

8 lon

ger t

erm

pr

edict

abilit

y, an

d he

nce

impr

oved

inve

stm

ent

decis

ions

and

inve

stm

ent

clim

ate

Q19 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

ener

gy su

pply

and

secu

rity

Q20 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

natio

nal a

nd E

U en

ergy

m

arke

ts

Q21 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t of

ener

gy ef

ficien

cy p

olici

es

Q22 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g of

pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s clim

ate

targ

et?

Q2

3bet

ter m

onito

ring

of

rene

wabl

e ene

rgy

deve

lopm

ents

and

targ

ets

Q24 b

ette

r mon

itorin

g of

re

sear

ch an

d in

nova

tion

deve

lopm

ents

in cl

imat

e an

d en

ergy

topi

cs

Q25 b

ette

r int

egra

tion

of

natio

nal e

nerg

y sys

tem

s wi

th th

ose o

f oth

er

coun

tries

and

bette

r co

oper

atio

n of

Mem

ber

Q32 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f en

ergy

pol

icy in

Mem

ber

Stat

es (e

.g. w

ider

av

ailab

ility o

f dat

a)

Q33 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f pu

blic

and

priva

te en

ergy

in

vest

men

t and

spen

ding

Q3

4 col

lectin

g da

ta o

n iss

ues t

hat w

ere

prev

ious

ly no

t mea

sure

d Q3

5 col

lectin

g be

tter

quali

ty an

d m

ore

accu

rate

dat

a Q3

6 col

lectin

g da

ta o

n a

cons

isten

t bas

is wi

th

othe

r Mem

ber S

tate

s to

allow

com

paris

on /

benc

hmar

king?

Q3

7pub

lic co

nfid

ence

in

safe

ty m

easu

res i

n Me

mbe

r Sta

tes

Dir. 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - Art. 41(1) e(Reporting obligation)

100% 2 50% 2 50% 2 100% 2 50% 3 50% 3 50% 3 67% 3 100% 2 67% 3 67% 3 50% 4 67% 3

Dir. 2009/73/EC(Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - Art.5(Reporting obligation)

67% 3 100% 2 100% 1 100% 2 50% 3 50% 3 33% 4 67% 3 100% 2 67% 3 50% 3 67% 4 100% 3

Dir. 94/22/EC(Authorizations for prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons) - Art.9(Reporting obligation)

50% 2 100% 1 100% 1 100% 2 1 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 100%

1 100% 1 1

Reg. (EU) No 1316/2013(Connecting Europe Facility) - Art.22(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 100% 1 100% 1 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 2 100%

2 50% 2 67% 3 50% 3

Reg. No 256/2014(Energy infrastructure investment projects notification) - Art.3 and 5(Reporting obligation)

33% 3 50% 2 50% 5 67% 3 50% 3 67% 4 67% 4 50% 3 67% 4 67% 4

Nuclear Energy Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Art.8e(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 67% 4 50% 5 50% 5 50% 5 50% 5 67% 4 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Art.9(1)(Reporting obligation)

50% 3 50% 3 33% 4 67% 4 67% 4 33% 4 50% 3 50% 5 50% 3 50% 3

Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Art.14(1)(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 50% 3 50% 3 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4 50% 3 50% 4 50% 3 50% 3

Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Art.14(3)(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 67% 4 67% 4 50% 5 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4 50% 4 67% 4 67% 4

Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Art.16(1c)(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 50% 3 67% 4 67% 4 50% 3 33% 4 33% 4 33% 4 67% 4 67% 4

Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Art.20(1)(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 50% 5 33% 4 50% 5 50% 3 33% 4 50% 5 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4

Other Reg. (EC) No 1099/2008() - Art.6.4(Reporting obligation)

67% 4 33% 4 33% 4 0% 1 0% 2 50% 2 50% 2 50% 2 50% 5 67% 4 67% 4 50% 5 50% 5 50% 5

Reg. (EU) 691/2011(European environmental economic accounts) - Art.6(Reporting obligation)

100% 3 50% 5 100% 2 1 67% 4 50% 5 50% 5 100% 2 67% 4 0% 2 67% 3 100%

2 67% 3


302

Overview of European commission responses relevant to effectiveness

Note: ++ significant positive impact, + positive impact, - negative impact, -- significant negative impact Only one response per listed below obligations has been received from the EC

Q15 i

mpro

ved c

ompli

ance

, tra

nspo

sition

chec

king,

monit

oring

of

the im

plem

entat

ion

enfor

ceme

nt an

d per

form

ance

of

EU la

w

Q16 b

een i

mpo

rtant

for p

olicy

ch

ange

(e.g.

dev

elopm

ent o

f se

ctora

l poli

cies).

Q17 l

onge

r ter

m pr

edict

abilit

y, an

d he

nce i

mpro

ved i

nves

tmen

t de

cision

s and

inve

stmen

t clim

ate.

Q18 b

etter

mon

itorin

g and

as

sess

ment

of en

ergy

supp

ly an

d se

curity

Q19 b

etter

mon

itorin

g and

as

sess

ment

of na

tiona

l and

EU

ener

gy m

arke

ts

Q20 b

etter

mon

itorin

g and

as

sess

ment

of en

ergy

effic

iency

po

licies

Q21 b

etter

mon

itorin

g of p

rogr

ess

towar

ds cl

imate

targ

et?

Q22 b

etter

mon

itorin

g of

rene

wable

ener

gy de

velop

men

ts an

d tar

gets

Q23 b

etter

mon

itorin

g of r

esea

rch

and i

nnov

ation

deve

lopm

ents

in cli

mate

and e

nerg

y top

ics

Q24 b

etter

integ

ratio

n of n

ation

al en

ergy

syste

ms w

ith th

ose o

f oth

er co

untri

es an

d bett

er

coop

erati

on of

Mem

ber S

tates

at

EU le

vel

Q31 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f ene

rgy p

olicy

in

Memb

er S

tates

(e.g.

wide

r av

ailab

ility o

f data

)

Q32 t

rans

pare

ncy o

f pub

lic an

d pr

ivate

ener

gy in

vestm

ent a

nd

spen

ding

Q33 c

ollec

ting d

ata on

issu

es th

at we

re pr

eviou

sly no

t mea

sure

d

Q34 c

ollec

ting b

etter

quali

ty an

d mo

re ac

cura

te da

ta

Q35 c

ollec

ting d

ata on

a co

nsist

ent b

asis

with

other

Me

mber

Stat

es to

allow

co

mpar

ison /

benc

hmar

king?

Q36 p

ublic

confi

denc

e in s

afety

meas

ures

in M

embe

r Stat

es

Dir. 2012/27/EU (Energy Efficiency Dir.) Evaluation of annual reports and NEEAPs / Art-'(24(3))' ++ - - + ++ - - - + ++ + ++ - + + Reg. 2964/95/EC (Oil import and delivery registration) COM to analyse information and communicate it to MS / Art-'(8)' ++ ++ ++ + + - - ++ ++ Reg. 994/2010 (Measures to safeguard security of supply) Report on the security of gas supply to be included in annual reporting in Dir. 2009/73/EC / Art-'(14)' ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - ++ + - ++ Coun. Dec. 1999/280 (Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) Publish crude oil supply cost cif (and the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and inclusive of duties and taxes charged) / Art-'(4)' ++ ++ ++ + ++ - - ++ ++ Coun. Dec. 1999/280 (Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) Publish consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes charged (weekly Oil Bulletin) / Art-'(4)' ++ ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom (Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) Summary report on the implementation of the Dir. with particular attention for art. 4 / Art-'(20(2))' ++ + ++ ++ ++ - ++ ++ Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom (Safety Nuclear Installations) Report on progress made with the implementation of this Dir. / Art-'(9(2))' ++ - - + ++ - ++ ++ ++ ++ Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom (Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) Report on progress, summary report, inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel and future prospects / Art-'(14(2))' ++ + ++ ++ ++ - ++ ++ Planning Obligation -- Coun. Reg. 1368/2013 and 1369/2013 (Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania) Annual work programme / Art-'(6)' ++ + - ++ ++ ++ ++ Coun. Reg. 1368/2013 and 1369/2013 (Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania) Progress report / Art-'(6)' ++ + - ++ ++ ++ ++


303

Overview of the responses on whether the obligation is still up to date

Q. To what extent do you think the current planning and reporting obligations in the legislation are still up to date?

Obligation responsible Up to date Reg. 994/2010 (Measures to safeguard security of supply) Report on the security of gas supply to be included in annual reporting in Dir. 2009/73/EC / Art-'(14)'

EC 1 very little

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Potential of cogeneration and district heating and cooling/Art.14(1), 24, Annex XIII MS 3 not at all Planning obligation - Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Long-term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock/Art.4

MS 1 very little

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - Progress report/Art.7, 24, Annex XIV MS 1 very little Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) - statistics on national electricity and heat production from high and low efficiency cogeneration/Art.24 (6)

MS 2 very little, 2 not at all

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - 1.Annual summary copy of the stock register/Art.6 MS 2 very little Dir. 2009/119/EC (Oil Stocks Directive) - 4. Monthly statistical summaries of specific stocks/Art.13 MS 1 very little, 1 not at all Planning obligation - Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - 1. Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans/Art.5

MS 1 very little

Planning obligation - Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - 2. Risk assessment/Art.9 MS 1 very little Reg. No 256/2014(Energy infrastructure investment projects notification) - Reporting on investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union/Art.3 and 5

MS 2 very little

Dir. 2008/92/EC (Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - 1. Suppliers to communicate prices/Art.1 MS 2 very little Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex I: Gas prices reports MS 2 very little Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) - Annex II: Electricity prices report MS 2 very little Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Inform on shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries/Art.16(1c)

MS 1 very little

Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) - Report on implementation of the directive/Art.20(1)

MS 2 very little

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) - Report on progress made with the implementation of this Directive/Art.9(1)

MS 1 very little

Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel) - Report on implementation/Art.14(1) MS 1 very little Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources/Art.22 MS 1 not at all Planning obligation - Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP)/Art.4 + Annex VI

MS 1 not at all, 2 very little


304

Overview of the responses on duplication in reporting Responses to: Q25. Do you have to report the same data under more than one reporting obligation? Q26. If yes, please indicate which data and under what reporting obligations

Overlap level Obligations selected in the survey Area

2012/27/ES and 2010/31/ES

Overlap across EU obligations

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings)

Energy Efficiency

All the data, under Regulation 765/2008102 Overlap across EU obligations

Energy efficiency Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive) - Art.3(3)(Reporting obligation)Enforcement activities and level of compliance

Energy Efficiency

Annex XIV part 1 involved by Eurostat NEEAP involved by all sectoral reporting obligations


Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) Energy Efficiency

Country Report, National Reform Programme, Progress Report Overlap with national obligations

Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) - Decarbonisation

Data on co-generation are reported also to EUROSTAT. Energy efficiency progress is reported under National reform Programme as well as separately under EED article 24

Overlap with obligations to Eurostat

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive)

Energy Efficiency

E.g. CHP production and relating data under EED-dir. and Energy statistics regulation (ESR)


Many different obligations Energy Efficiency

Eurostat Shares data. Overall with obligations to Eurostat

Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) Decarbonisation

National Energy Efficiency Plan Overlap with national obligations

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive

Energy Efficiency Decarbonisation

NEEAP and long term strategy (art 4 EED) Overlap across EU obligations

Energy efficiency Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive Dir. 2010/31/EU(Energy Performance of Buildings) Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive)

Decarbonisation

Policies and measures relative to energy efficiency are described in many documents, like NEEAP, annual report, renovation strategy (measures targeting buildings), but also in climate reporting : report under the monitoring mechanism decision, which we write in common with colleagues in charge of GHG mitigation, when both reports are to be published the same year.


Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) Energy Efficiency

remarkable redundancy with reporting under regulation (EU) 1099/2088 on Energy Statistics


Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) Decarbonisation

reporting for GHG targets, EE and RES Overlap across EU obligations

Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive)


reporting to Commission, ADCO, Ministry

Overlap with national obligations

Dir. 2010/30/EU(Energy Labelling Directive) - Decarbonisation

The implemented regulation also have to be reported, and there are ex-ante and bank loan conditionality.




Under National Reform Program, GHG reporting obligations Overlap with national obligations



(1) crude oil imports: 2964/95 & 1099/2008 (2) energy efficiency: 2012/27 & 1099/2008


Dir. 2012/27/EU(Energy Efficiency Directive) Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration)

Internal Energy Market Energy

102 Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products. It is important to guarantee a high level of market surveillance in order to satisfy the requirements of protection of public interests such as health and safety in general, health and safety in the workplace, protection of consumers, the environment and security.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=celex:32008R0765


305

Responses to: Q25. Do you have to report the same data under more than one reporting obligation? Q26. If yes, please indicate which data and under what reporting obligations


(3) crude oil consumption & imports + biofuels consumption: 1099/2008 & 2015/652 Reg. No 256/2014(Energy infrastructure investment projects notification) Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity) Dir. 2009/73/EC(Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products) Dir. 2009/28/EC(Renewable Energy Directive) Reg. (EC) No 1099/2008() - Art.6.4(Reporting obligation to EUROSTAT)

Efficiency Decarbonisation

ACER, Eurostat (We should understand that data reported to ACER and Eurostat are similar)

Overlap with obligations to Eurostat

Dir. 2005/89/EC(Security of Electricity Supply and Infrastructure Investment) Dir. 2008/92/EC(Gas and Electricity Prices Industrial End-users) Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity Dir. 2009/73/EC (Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - Art. 41(1) e (Reporting obligation) 1. NRA annual report


Annual Report to the Portuguese Government and Parliament, in line with national obligations


Dir. 2009/72/EC (Common rules for the internal market in electricity) - Art.37(1) ( e )(Reporting obligation)1. National Regulatory Authority annual report Dir. 2009/73/EC(Common rules for the internal market in natural gas) - Art. 41(1) e(Reporting obligation) 1. NRA annual report


Article 12 and (eventually) Article 13 of the Oil Stock Directive Overlap across EU obligations

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.6(Reporting obligation) 1.Annual summary copy of the stock register


Contact details of dedicated officers, pci implementation details, Not clear Reg. 994/2010(Measures to safeguard security of supply) - Reg. (EU) No 1316/2013 (Connecting Europe Facility)

Energy supply security Internal Energy Market

International Energy Agency Overlap with international obligations

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) - Art.14(Reporting obligation)5. Monthly statistical summaries of commercial stocks Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration) Coun. Dec. 1999/280(Crude oil supply costs and consumer price of petroleum products)

Energy supply security Internal Energy Market

Monthly oil statistics are reported to the eurostat and the International Energy Agency Overlap with international obligations and Eurostat

Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) Reg. 2964/95/EC(Oil import and delivery registration)


National Legislation (all data about emergency stocks) on 31.12. MOS (closing stocks) are the same than reported in Art.6 (2)


Dir. 2009/119/EC(Oil Stocks Directive) Energy supply security

NRAs provide both national reports and contribute to Market Monitoring Report under ACER/CEER. Though data of reports are very similar, both reportings are time consuming and require special attention.


Dir. 2009/72/EC(Common rules for the internal market in electricity) Dir. 2009/73/EC(Common rules for the internal market in natural gas


Article 37 2009/72/EC, Article 4 2009/72/EC, 2005/89/EC article 7 (1-4) NEEAP and progress report for EE.NREAP and progress report RED


Many different obligations (collaborative response) Internal Energy Market, Decarbonisation

CNS Overlap with international obligations

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom (Safety Nuclear Installations) -

Nuclear

Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management

Overlap with international obligations

Coun. Dir.2006/117/ Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) Coun. Dir. 2009/71/ Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations)

Nuclear


306

Responses to: Q25. Do you have to report the same data under more than one reporting obligation? Q26. If yes, please indicate which data and under what reporting obligations


Convention on Nuclear Safety Overlap with international obligations

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom (Safety Nuclear Installations) -

Nuclear

For a non-nuclear counrty with limited amount of radioactive waste: reporting obligation to the IAEA (Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management) and to the European Commission (2006/117/Euratom) regarding shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel.


Coun. Dir.2006/117/ Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) Coun. Dir. 2009/71/ Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel)

Nuclear

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Conventions Overlap with international obligations

Coun. Dir.2006/117/ Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel) Coun. Dir. 2009/71/ Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel)

Nuclear

Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management


Coun. Dir. 2011/70/Euratom(Management Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel)

Nuclear

National Report for the Review Meetings of the Joint Convention Overlap with international obligations

Coun. Dir. 2006/117/Euratom(Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel)

Nuclear

UN Convention on Nuclear Safety Overlap with international obligations

Coun. Dir. 2009/71/Euratom(Safety Nuclear Installations) Nuclear

525/2013103


Reg. (EU) 691/2011(European environmental economic accounts) - Art.6(Reporting obligation)Reporting of statistics on air emission accounts, environmentally related taxes on economic activity, and economy-wide material flow accounts.

Other

energy statistics to IEA Overlap with international obligations

Reg. (EC) No 1099/2008() - Art.6.4(Reporting obligation)Every five years, Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with a report on the quality of the data transmitted as well as on any methodological changes that have been made.

Other

103 Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change


307

Annex I: Impact assessment of Policy Option: Assumptions used for the cost analysis N of legislation 31 (14 Directives, 13 regulations, 3 decisions, 1 Euratom treaty)

Legislation

N of Obligations to be:

integrated repealed

Kept separated

from NECP

Grand Total

1 Council Decision 1999/280 4 4

2 Decision 994/2012/EU 1 1

3 Directive 2005/89/EC 2 2

4 Directive 2008/92/EC 2 2 4

5 Directive 2009/119/EC 1 1 3 5

6 Directive 2009/28/EC* 5 1 6

7 Directive 2009/72/EC 1 3 4

8 Directive 2009/73/EC 1 3 4

9 Directive 2010/30/EU 2 2

10 Directive 2010/31/EU* 5 5

11 Directive 2012/27/EU* 8 8

12 Directive 2013/30/EU* 2 1 3

13 Directive 94/22/EC 2 2

14 REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2008 5 5

15 Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 1 1 2

16 Regulation 2964/95/EC 2 2

17 Regulation 994/2010 1 2 3

18 Regulation No 256/2014 1 1 2

19 Regulation No 663/2009, as amended by regulation 1233/2010 1 1

20 Council Decision 2008/114/Euratom 1 1

21 Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom 3 3

22 Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom* 4 4

23 Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom 4 4

24 Council Regulations 1368/2013 and 1369/2013* 2 2

25 Euratom Treaty 1 1

26 Regulation (EC) 713/2009 3 3

27 Regulation (EU) 691/2011 1 1

28 Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 1 1

29 Regulation 714/2009 2 2

30 Regulation 715/2009 2 2

31 Regulation No 1227/2011 1 1 *regulation that will expire in 2020 and will be renewed after 2020 Year 2020: 8% inflation since 2016 All final costs in the IA are shown for 28MS


308

1) Cost of implementation (one time cost)

Baseline and PO1:

Revision and renewal of obligation in 5 Directives and 3 regulations that expire in 2020,

• Revision and renewal of the obligations: 2-6 person month equivalent per legislation for EC • Discussion of each legislation in a Working group: ) including 4 EC officers and 28 MS

representative working for 2 month full time equivalent104 • Translation into 23 MS languages and quality assurance per legislation per language €8.500

(for translation €2500 and quality assurance of the text by the EC legal experts (1 person month)

Transposition cost per MS (5 Directives only,)

• TTransposition of EU Directive to national legislation: 6-12 person month • Discussion in an expert group of 10-20 people and adoption:

Public consultation in MS: €10000 - 50000105

Implementation of Regulation via ministerial Order: • Development of the ministerial order: 1-3 person month • Discussion in an expert group of 5-8 people and adoption: 5 days per person

(Monitoring cost is assumed to be part of the reporting/ongoing cost)

NECP development and planning PO1: • light NECP as it will be an add on to existing obligations (see estimates on cost below) • All of MS will adopt it but no all (~half) will regularly report on it as it is and non-binding • No central electronic system

PO2 Amending/revising sectoral legislations

Revision and amending process of obligations and legislations, excluding the ones recommended to keep “separate” from NECP

• based on the study recommendations 19 legislations to be amended (repealed or integrated), inlc 11 directives, 6 regulations, 2 decision PLUS the legislations that expire in 2020 ( Dir 2009/71 and Regulations 1368/69/2013)

• Revision and amending the obligation text: 2-6 person month equivalent per legislation for EC

• Discussion in 6 Working Groups(WG) per one thematic area (group of legislation on one topic) including 4 EC officers and 28 MS representative working for 4-8 month full time equivalent

• Public consultation: €40000 - 80000 • Translation of 21 legislations into 23 MS language and quality assurance per legislation per

language €8.500 (for translation €2500 and quality assurance of the text by legal experts (1 person month on salary of €6000)

Transposition cost per MS (11 Directives + 1 that expires in 2020)

• Translation of EU legislation in to the national regulations: 6-12 person month • Discussion in an expert group of 10-20 people and adoption: • Public consultation in MS: €10000 - 50000

Implementation of Regulation via ministerial Order (7 regulations and 2 decision):

• Development of the ministerial order: 1-3 person month • Discussion in an expert group of 10-20 people and adoption: 5 days per person

(Monitoring cost is assumed to be part of the reporting/ongoing cost)

PO3a and b Single Act for EC Cost of developing a new single act (Regulation): • Preparation, drafting

104 Gross monthly rate for a Commission official - €6000, Gross monthly rate of MS official - €2750 (base on Eurostat data) 105 http://cloud-collaboration.kahootz.com/cutting-the-cost-of-stakeholder-engagement


309

• PO3a: 36 person month equivalent (6 people X 3 month full time equivalent) • PO3b: 24 person month equivalent (6 people X 2 month full time equivalent)

• Discussion of Single act in a Working group : including 6 EC officers and 28 MS representative working

– PO3a : 3 month fulltime equivalent – PO3b: 2 month fulltime equivalent

• Public consultation: – PO3a : €30000 – 80000 – O3b: €20000 – 60000

• Cost of translation into 23 MS languages and quality assurance €13000 per language (for translation €4000 and quality assurance of the text by the EC legal experts (1,5 person month )

Revision/amendment of existing legislations as a result of Single Act by EC (Po3a and PO3b) • In PO3a : 31 legislations • In PO3b :11 directives, 6 regulations, 2 decisions falling under Single act + Dir 2009/71 and

Regulations 1368/69/2013 that expire in 2020 • Revision of text: 0,5- 1 person month per legislation • Discussion in 6 Working group per each thematic area: 4 EC offices, 28 MS:

o PO3a: 2-3 months o PO3b: 1-2 month

• Translation into EU languages: 4000 per legislation (smaller cost that in PO2) Implementation of a Single act per MS: • Since the Single Act is a regulation, there is no transposition cost but cost for Implementation of

Regulation via ministerial Order ,in addition to the cost of adoption of NECP (see below) • Development of the ministerial order: 3 5 person month • Discussion in an expert group of 5-8 people and adoption: 5 days per person

– (Monitoring cost is assumed to be part of the reporting/ongoing cost)

Transposition cost per MS of all Directives and regulations amended (all in PO3a and selected in PO3b, including the ones that expire in 2020):

• Transposition of EU Directives to national legislation: 1 person month per legislation • Discussion in an expert group and parliament:

o PO3a: MS officer 3 person month per thematic group , 1 expert group of 10-20 people for all legislations X 20 days)

o PO3b: MS officer 2 person month per thematic group, 1 expert group 10-20 people for all legislations X 10 days

NECP development and adoption cost per MS • Preparation, drafting, re-drafting, finalization, endorsement:

o PO1: 3 person months 6-10 national officers o PO2: 9 person month 6-10 national officers o PO3a: 12 person months 6-10 national officers o PO3b: 6 person month 6-10 national officers

• SPublic consultation and promotion: o PO1: €20000 – 40000 o PO2: €30000 – 60000 o PO3a: €30000 – 80000 o PO3b: €20000 - 50000

2) Admin and reporting cost (annual, for MS)

Planning and reporting cost per obligations (in all POs): • Calculation is based on costs per obligation identified through MS survey • Integrated into NECP obligations cost 50% less, due to less data collection and feed NECP • Not integrated obligations keep 100% cost and feed separate reporting on obligation • repealed obligation cost=0 • Risk factoring (20%) in the planning and reporting cost in PO2 due to the less coordinated

process, additional time requirement and non-binding nature of templates

NECP planning, reporting and coordination cost:


310

• PO1: 6 person month/year (but only 50% countries will comply) • PO2: 9 person month/year (but 20% extra cost for risk) • PO3a: 12 person month/year • PO3b: 6 person month/year

3) Service outsourcing cost (annual, for MS)

Outsourcing in obligation • Calculation is based on costs per obligation identified through MS survey • Integrated into NECP obligations cost 50% less, as there will still be

information/data collection to feed NECP , while report writing won’t be there anymore

• Not integrated obligations keep 100% cost • repealed obligation cost=0

Outsourcing of NECP planning and reporting is not included in the analysis. If it is practiced by MS there will be a reallocation of some costs form NECP planning, reporting and coordination cost to subcontracting. The subcontracting might be slightly more expensive than the cost of the MS public officers. Which means in reality it can slightly increase the overall reporting and planning cost. However, these all vary across MS.

4) ICT and equipment cost

Cost of Single electronic reporting system (one time cost for EC): • Introducing/developing new system:

o PO2 and PO3b: €5mln o PO3a: €6mln

Alternatively: • integration into existing system:

o PO2 and PO3b: €50.000 o PO3a: €75.000

Cost of maintenance of the single electronic system (annual cost for EC ):

o PO2 and PO3b: €100.000 o PO3a: €150.000106

ICT and equipment cost for MS for collection of national data and information in all POs: (based on the cost data from the MS survey)

• Integrated into NECP obligations cost 100% (cost doesn’t change as MS will still keep on using the ICT for collecting data to feed NECP)

• Not integrated obligations keep 100% • repealed obligation cost=0

106 based on interviews with representatives of EC and EEA working with comparable reporting system


311


Trinomics B.V.

Westersingel 32A

3014 GS Rotterdam

the Netherlands

T +31 (0) 10 3414 592

http://www.trinomics.eu

KvK n°: 56028016

VAT n°: NL8519.48.662.B01

Specific Tender under Framework Contract ENER/A4/516-2014 · 1) Preparatory study for the...

Documents

Transcript of Specific Tender under Framework Contract ENER/A4/516-2014 · 1) Preparatory study for the...